Eddie Howe

[Interpolic]

3 minutes ago, wong989 said:

we didn’t tear Leicester to shreds

 

Er... 

 

 

It does not get much more conclusive than that with xG, and that's after scoring all 3 goals within the first 35 minutes and taking our foot off the pedal thereafter. 

[wong989]

1 minute ago, Interpolic said:

 

Er... 

 

 

It does not get much more conclusive than that with xG, and that's after scoring all 3 goals within the first 35 minutes and taking our foot off the pedal thereafter. 

We stripped them of the ball twice leading to about 1.9 xg scored a great counter, just saying by no means did we look like a top creative attacking team there or in the run in in general

[Interpolic]

2 minutes ago, wong989 said:

We stripped them of the ball twice leading to about 1.9 xg scored a great counter, just saying by no means did we look like a top creative attacking team there or in the run in in general

 

So that's what people are saying when they're saying we've been shite since the cup final then? That we've not been a "top creative attacking team" since March? Playing well and winning games at a canter isn't good enough? 

 

Moving goalposts is right and Jesus the expected standards are sky high, eh. Not even the likes of Liverpool, Arsenal, Man City, Chelsea are/were playing scintillating attacking football every game, yet that's expected of us? 

[Cf]

13 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

What if you mainly score or concede small chances ? 
 

And why have they excluded the bottom 3 clubs from the analysis ? Those clubs are just as relevant as all the others in the league. West Ham battered us, for example. 

 

 

 

 

Well that's part of the point it is making. 

 

If you're conceding smaller chances it suggests a) you're defending well in the main to not give big chances away, b) you're running somewhat unlucky that these chances are being well taken and/or c) poor goalkeeping.

 

All the above ring true to me. Pope has had his dodgy moments whilst he was fit and Ramsdale hasn't covered himself in glory either. 

[wong989]

Just now, Interpolic said:

 

So that's what people are saying when they're saying we've been shite since the cup final then? That we've not been a "top creative attacking team" since March? Playing well and winning games at a canter isn't good enough? 

 

Moving goalposts is right and Jesus the expected standards are sky high, eh. Not even the likes of Liverpool, Arsenal, Man City, Chelsea are/were playing scintillating attacking football every game, yet that's expected of us? 

Not saying that, just that we had a run of great results where we didn’t play that well, and when we did play a team in form, or with an attentive manager, we struggled badly and created little, Bournemouth and Brighton come to mind, Everton of course but the rat didnt help there. Not saying it to be overly critical. More to say it seemed apparent that without being able to force teams into mistakes in their halves we lacked the composure and creativity in areas to consistently win.

[Andy]

I think the statement "Isak was shite since the cup final" has somehow blurred into "we were shite since the cup final" as this season has progressed. 

 

We definitely limped over the line in the last few games and maybe weren't playing our best football from around April, but we were still much more effective for the most part than we've been this season. 

[bobbydazzla]

15 minutes ago, Cf said:

 

Well that's part of the point it is making. 

 

If you're conceding smaller chances it suggests a) you're defending well in the main to not give big chances away, b) you're running somewhat unlucky that these chances are being well taken and/or c) poor goalkeeping.

 

All the above ring true to me. Pope has had his dodgy moments whilst he was fit and Ramsdale hasn't covered himself in glory either.

But how do you know what size chances you’re giving away when the likelihood of a chance being big or small depends on the player it falls to.
 

Like a small chance with the ball at Messi’s feet would be far more dangerous than a big chance with the ball at Shola’s feet. That’s not down to luck or goalkeeper performance, that’s largely down to the quality of the opposition players. 

And why do West Ham, Burnley and Wolves not count ? West Ham tore us a new arsehole. 

 

 

Edited December 28, 2025 by bobbydazzla

[Interpolic]

14 minutes ago, wong989 said:

Not saying that, just that we had a run of great results where we didn’t play that well, and when we did play a team in form, or with an attentive manager, we struggled badly and created little, Bournemouth and Brighton come to mind, Everton of course but the rat didnt help there. Not saying it to be overly critical. More to say it seemed apparent that without being able to force teams into mistakes in their halves we lacked the composure and creativity in areas to consistently win.

 

It sounds like you expect us to dominate and win every single game. Ain't gonna happen with our budget. Even the teams challenging for titles are labouring to wins against poor sides fairly regularly, and losing games now and then too.  

 

That Leicester game was a case of us forcing 3 fast goals then calling it a day. It was a dominant win. Our form post-cup final is one of Howe's best achievements imo, as we could so very easily have rested on our laurels. Instead last season was the best in our recent history. 

 

This season is another story, it's clearly gonna be up and down but has been nowhere near as bad as some on here are carrying on. But I'm not having people lumping last season in with this, or saying the signs were there. It's bollocks. 

[Geogaddi]

You can criticise Eddie for some of the results this season but to go back and try and rewrite history after that cup final win is weird behaviour .

[Displayname]

3 hours ago, The College Dropout said:

Didn’t sign anyone of note for a year and then spent £200m without a DOF or a proper transfer committee so that was largely wasted. 
 

Howe has made mistakes aye. But this isn’t a situation where we could go and grab another manager and surge up the table. The team is within 3 points of where it should be. It’s not bad coaching that is the root cause of the performances.  

Not bad coaching, but limited. He is great at what he can do, but until he proves otherwise I'm going to be sceptical that can be successful managing a side that plays twice a week.

 

While I certainly disagree that we are just 3 points from were we should be, it's not really the results that bother me, but the performances. So damn low quality in many(if not most of them) and we are straight up boring to watch.

 

I don't want to sack him in the middle of the season, he alteast deserve to play it out considering his achievements here.

[Interpolic]

2 minutes ago, Displayname said:

I don't want to sack him in the middle of the season, he alteast deserve to play it out considering his achievements here.

 

 how fucking magnanimous of you. 

[Kid Icarus]

Potentially opening a can of worms here but a lot of these absolutely ridiculous expectations as a consequence of the success the manager himself created out of nothing is starting to remind me a lot of how Southgate went from saviour to scapegoat within a couple of years.

 

Some people do really seem like they'd be better off with low expectations that are set and met, than with higher expectations that achieve more but don't meet the expectations that have been set.

[bobbydazzla]

9 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Potentially opening a can of worms here but a lot of these absolutely ridiculous expectations as a consequence of the success the manager himself created out of nothing is starting to remind me a lot of how Southgate went from saviour to scapegoat within a couple of years.

 

Some people do really seem like they'd be better off with low expectations that are set and met, than with higher expectations that achieve more but don't meet the expectations that have been set.

Aim for the stars, land on the moon, whinge like spoilt bairns about the lunar landing achievement and claim the moon’s fucking shite

 

 

Edited December 28, 2025 by bobbydazzla

[Heron]

Absolutely mental the levels of this discussion in my mind like

[Kid Icarus]

5 minutes ago, Heron said:

Absolutely mental the levels of this discussion in my mind like

Imagine if the internet had been as much of a big thing as it is now when Keegan was manager. 

 

I think we've been blind to a lot of the craziness in our support like. Ignorance was bliss.

[Jagten]

13 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

Aim for the stars, land on the moon, whinge like spoilt bairns about the lunar landing achievement and claim the moon’s fucking shite

 

 

 

I think there’s a reasonable middle ground which says Howe has mostly done exceptionally well but his influence on executive policy has become outsized as a consequence of poor PIF management, which is something common to most of their ventures. 

[Vinny Green Balls]

26 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Potentially opening a can of worms here but a lot of these absolutely ridiculous expectations as a consequence of the success the manager himself created out of nothing is starting to remind me a lot of how Southgate went from saviour to scapegoat within a couple of years.

 

Some people do really seem like they'd be better off with low expectations that are set and met, than with higher expectations that achieve more but don't meet the expectations that have been set.

it's like fans bitching about the new album only for it to become a masterpiece later. I'm sure there were The Who fans claiming that The Who were a spent force when Who's Next came out.

 

Not saying that we are putting out masterpieces at the moment. This season has been shit, but we're just about halfway through and could well win another trophy.

 

 

Edited December 28, 2025 by Vinny Green Balls

[Heron]

Just now, Vinny Green Balls said:

it's like fans bitching about the new album only for it to become a masterpiece later. I'm sure there were The Who fans claiming that The Who were a spent force when Who's Next came out.

So if we've queried Who and Howe I guess next it will be What Where and When?

 

 

Edited December 28, 2025 by Heron

[KingArthur]

5 hours ago, bobbydazzla said:

You only have to create enough chances to score more than the opposition. 
 

And if you’ve got a mean defence and ruthless attack, that means you don’t need to create many chances. 
 

And that can go on for many seasons and lead to much success and trophies.
 

Hence the celebratory terrace chant “one nil, to the Arsenal” in the late 80’s and early 90’s. 
 

Or Mourinho and his treble winning Inter side. Then he took a low xG approach to Real and was successful there. 

 

 

 

Can you explain what is a "ruthless attack" in football? Like which teams or players?

And yes, great teams often don't concede a lot of goals. 
Mourinho's Inter or DiMatteo's Chelsea rode their luck against Barca tbh. Inter had fantastic team. 

But the point is, if you dont create a lot of opportunities, MOST likely you will not win in the long term. You don't win anything (league titles) by just counterattacking anymore, even though it creates high xG chances when succesful. 

I don't like xG, but usually it tells something

[bobbydazzla]

3 minutes ago, Jagten said:

I think there’s a reasonable middle ground which says Howe has mostly done exceptionally well but his influence on executive policy has become outsized as a consequence of poor PIF management, which is something common to most of their ventures. 

Yes, we’ve been a mess with our off-field leadership due to departures (Ashworth) poor hires (Mitchell) and Eales getting diagnosed with cancer. But saying  Howe has outsized influence on executive policy is just speculation.

[Heron]

A lot of what is being said is speculation (or not really well-established) that's the issue for me.

 

Howe can be criticised for certain elements but a lot of the elements being levelled at him are either a) without consideration for other factors or are b) what the individual wants to believe based on perception rather than fact.

 

 

Edited December 28, 2025 by Heron

[Jagten]

6 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

Yes, we’ve been a mess with our off-field leadership due to departures (Ashworth) poor hires (Mitchell) and Eales getting diagnosed with cancer. But saying  Howe has outsized influence on executive policy is just speculation.

His nephew is leading recruitment.
 

That said, whoever is in charge - and I don’t care who - Elanga, Wissa, Barnes and Ramsey was not an especially prudent use of 200m for a squad that, minus Isak, tops out at 5th. 

[bobbydazzla]

23 minutes ago, KingArthur said:

Can you explain what is a "ruthless attack" in football? Like which teams or players?

And yes, great teams often don't concede a lot of goals. 
Mourinho's Inter or DiMatteo's Chelsea rode their luck against Barca tbh. Inter had fantastic team. 

But the point is, if you dont create a lot of opportunities, MOST likely you will not win in the long term. You don't win anything (league titles) by just counterattacking anymore, even though it creates high xG chances when succesful. 

I don't like xG, but usually it tells something

Ruthless consistent goal scorers like Haaland, Kane, Mbappe, Ronaldo, Messi. Shearer, Henry, Cole, Rooney, Ageuro etc etc etc etc 

 

If you have a rock solid defence and a player of that calibre and consistency up front, you don’t need to create a lot of chances in order to win games and be successful.

 

 

Edited December 28, 2025 by bobbydazzla

[bobbydazzla]

9 minutes ago, Jagten said:

His nephew is leading recruitment.
 

That said, whoever is in charge - and I don’t care who - Elanga, Wissa, Barnes and Ramsey was not an especially prudent use of 200m for a squad that, minus Isak, tops out at 5th. 

Do you have inside evidence that demonstrates Howe’s influence over his nephew’s job, or are you just speculating that because they’re related to each other then they must be in cahoots ?

 

I worked with a niece and her uncle, where their day to day responsibilities directly affected each other. Both were excellent at their jobs and you wouldn’t have even known they were related. 

 

 

 

Edited December 28, 2025 by bobbydazzla

[The Prophet]

7 minutes ago, Heron said:

A lot of what is being said is speculation (or not really well-established) that's the issue for me.

 

Howe can be criticised for certain elements but a lot of the elements being levelled at him are either a) without consideration for other factors or are b) what the individual wants to believe based on perception rather than fact.

 

 

 

 

A hill I'd happily die on is a few fans made their mind up early on that he wasn't the man to take us forward and they've been seeking confirmation bias ever since. It's the same names that consistently pop up when there's been a bad run of results or a perceived crisis.