Eddie Howe

[Lush Vlad]

Just now, Kid Icarus said:

It absolutely is. People have extremely short memories.

I mean. I’m 36. So can’t say I remember all of them well. Other than we are almost always shite there and lose by 2 or 3. 
 

But I still think this is such a strange argument. Plenty of seasons we would have gone there as total dogs and often in a relegation scrap. Our away form has been patchy at best even in the good seasons under the likes of SBR. 
 

The gap in class would have been huge in terms of wages, squad cost, ability, expectations etc. We went there last night and we could have gone above them with a win. They’ve had some shocking results at home and in general. Does that get totally ignored when comparing the performances? 

 

How you can watch a game where we were great for 35 minutes and then mainly our usual toothless selves away from home and crap defensively outside of that. In a game where we lost 4-1 and had them in cruise control for the last half an hour and say ‘comfortably’ our best performance, is absolutely mental. 
 

The game is not 35 minutes long. 
 

 

[Sir Joel Inton]

There are plenty of positives about Howe to point to rather than dying on a hill that we were prime Barcelona away at Anfield last night, after losing 4-1 and being totally outclassed for 60 minutes.

[Smal]

We were great for the first 30 minutes, which is why I find it hard to lay any of the blame with the manager tbh. The approach to the game was spot on.

 

They hit us with two sucker punches, and unfortunately I think you can lay both at Trippier’s feet. The players just folded after that. We are paying the price for not signing a versatile full back in the summer big time.

 

 

Edited February 1 by Smal

[andycap]

Every man and his dog have played Liverpool and and made it a tough game for them even beating them on occasions. They're bang out of form and we rock up and let them score four after leading. And barely threatening there goal second half. 

[Lush Vlad]

4 minutes ago, Smal said:

We were great for the first 30 minutes, which is why I find it hard to lay any of the blame with the manager tbh. The approach to the game was spot on.

 

They hit us with two sucker punches, and unfortunately I think you can lay both at Trippier’s feet. The players just folded after that. We are paying the price for not signing a versatile full back in the summer big time.

 

 

 

Yes and no. The manager needs to be proactive as much as the players do. Not just ‘this is the gameplan’ and that’s that. Did we adjust at all after falling behind? What was said at half time to make us collectively shit the bed like that? 
 

More subs that were too late and made us worse and a disjointed mess. I think we were far too gung ho for the second half when the game was still in the balance, too. We knew 3-1 would be game over. But never looked to sit in that low-mid block that we actually do quite well as a 4-5-1. 

As for how bad we are with a lead. Howe has to shoulder some of the responsibility there. It’s been a running theme throughout the whole season. 

 

[Yorkie]

17 minutes ago, El Prontonise said:

 

100%.

 

I think the attitude of we never win there so it doesn't matter is pretty pathetic tbh.

 

Who's saying this?

[Smal]

9 minutes ago, Lush Vlad said:

As for how bad we are with a lead. Howe has to shoulder some of the responsibility there. It’s been a running theme throughout the whole season. 

I don’t really understand what’s changed because it used to be a big strength of ours. We could go ahead and kill games off either by being clinical or seeing out a clean sheet. I suppose the obvious one is the lack of a top level striker. Honestly what I’d give for a 22-23 Calum Wilson atm…

 

This season a lot of players just shit the bed. I said it last night but I think we miss players like Schar and Joelinton who but their bodies on the line and lead the rest of the team with that kind of never say die mentality. Having Ramsey/Willock instead of Bruno also didn’t help in that regard.

 

I don’t know. Maybe some of the players are a bit too comfortable and a refresh is needed.

 

 

Edited February 1 by Smal

[Kid Icarus]

1 hour ago, Lush Vlad said:

I mean. I’m 36. So can’t say I remember all of them well. Other than we are almost always shite there and lose by 2 or 3. 
 

But I still think this is such a strange argument. Plenty of seasons we would have gone there as total dogs and often in a relegation scrap. Our away form has been patchy at best even in the good seasons under the likes of SBR. 
 

The gap in class would have been huge in terms of wages, squad cost, ability, expectations etc. We went there last night and we could have gone above them with a win. They’ve had some shocking results at home and in general. Does that get totally ignored when comparing the performances? 

 

How you can watch a game where we were great for 35 minutes and then mainly our usual toothless selves away from home and crap defensively outside of that. In a game where we lost 4-1 and had them in cruise control for the last half an hour and say ‘comfortably’ our best performance, is absolutely mental. 
 

The game is not 35 minutes long. 
 

 

And 14 years under Ashley isn't 30 years either. Partly what I mean by short memories.

 

Even if we discount the Ashley era (although people have no problem including it when trying to cite an example of a better performance) There's another 16 years there where we've been contenders or were supposed to be, under Keegan (albeit in 94/95), Dalglish, Gullit, SBR, Souness, Roeder, Allardyce - all of that is included.

 

The difference in resources now, never mind under Ashley, compared to then is gargantuan.

 

In a field of other examples over the years where we've been terrible, it's actually very easy to point to a match where:

 

- We dominated until the match was turned on its head with individual errors

 

- 3 of the goals we conceded were individual errors, 1 of which was meaningless, and all of which that had nothing to do with our set up

 

- Played well as a team for the most part and very well for most of the first half

 

- Scored, should have scored more, hit the post, tested their 'keeper plenty, won corners, pressed well, linked up, supported each other and were set up well

 

- Did it all in the context of every entitled know-it-all on here whinging about how our line up was a disgrace and couldn't work etc

 

- The subs that were apparently essential and too late made us much worse

 

and come out of it thinking the performance, not the scoreline, was the best we've had at Anfield in a long, long time and that people are reverse engineering the performance from the scoreline.

 

There have been much better scorelines, but if there's an example where we've played better than that at Anfield since 1996, I haven't seen it.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 1 by Kid Icarus

[Sir Joel Inton]

2 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

3 of the goals we conceded were individual errors, 1 of which was meaningless, and all of which that had nothing to do with our set up

 

 

Aye. Playing a 70 year old Trippier with no legs high up the pitch had absolutely nothing to do with any of the goals.

 

3 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Played well as a team for the most part and very well for most of the first half

 

We played well for 35 minutes.

 

3 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Scored, should have scored more, hit the post, tested their 'keeper plenty, won corners, pressed well, linked up, supported each other and were set up well

 

xG of 0.36 and created 0 big chances.

 

4 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Did it all in the context of every entitled know-it-all on here whinging about how our line up was a disgrace and couldn't work etc

 

It didn’t work.

 

4 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

The subs that were apparently essential and too late made us much worse

 

The game was gone by the time he made the subs, as we have seen on numerous occasions before.

[Smal]

yeah, for all our dominance in the first 30 we didn’t actually create much. Had loads of corners but they were poor, which is a shame because they’ve been much better the last month or so.

[JoeyBartoon]

7 minutes ago, Smal said:

I don’t really understand what’s changed because it used to be a big strength of ours. We could go ahead and kill games off either by being clinical or seeing out a clean sheet. I suppose the obvious one is the lack of a top level striker. Honestly what I’d give for a 22-23 Calum Wilson atm…

 

This season a lot of players just shit the bed. I said it last night but I think we miss players like Schar and Joelinton who but their bodies on the line and lead the rest of the team with that kind of never say die mentality. Having Ramsey/Willock instead of Bruno also didn’t help in that regard.

 

I don’t know. Maybe some of the players are a bit too comfortable and a refresh is needed.

 

 

 

Doing the same thing over and over again probably doesn’t help. I can imagine we’re one of the easiest teams in the league for the opposition to analyse, especially away from home in the league 

[Mikky]

1 minute ago, Smal said:

I don’t really understand what’s changed because it used to be a big strength of ours. We could go ahead and kill games off either by being clinical or seeing out a clean sheet.

 

This season a lot of players just shit the bed. I said it last night but I think we miss players like Schar and Joelinton who but their bodies on the line and lead the rest of the team with that kind of never say die mentality. Having Ramsey/Willock instead of Bruno also didn’t help in that regard.

 

I don’t know. Maybe some of the players are a bit too comfortable and a refresh is needed.

For me it lies with the fact that we haven’t strengthened the first XI

 

GK - CB - CM - RW - CF (CF)

 

Ramsdale - 4m

Thiaw - 33m

Ramsey - 40m

Elanga - 52m

Wissa - 55m

(Woltermade) - 65m

 

Plain and simple we messed up big time in the summer - circa 250m spend should see you in a better position - we should have been more competitive with that spend 

 

And if you think about it - in the summer we may have to buy in those positions again to make up for the shitshow that was this season 

 

GK - CB - CM - RW - CF (RB - LB)

(Replace Ramsdale, Schar, Tripps, Willock, J Murphy, Osula)

[KennyUtd]

38 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

It absolutely is. People have extremely short memories.

What I mean is it isn't our best performance at Anfield in 30 years. Isak's first game was a great display and we were robbed. We've drawn a couple at  Anfield in the last 10 years. Not great like, I agree 

[Kid Icarus]

23 minutes ago, Sir Joel Inton said:

 

Aye. Playing a 70 year old Trippier with no legs high up the pitch had absolutely nothing to do with any of the goals.

 

 

We played well for 35 minutes.

 

 

xG of 0.36 and created 0 big chances.

 

 

It didn’t work.

 

 

The game was gone by the time he made the subs, as we have seen on numerous occasions before.

Ah yes, the team selection was still somehow wrong despite it showing all of you up, of course.

 

We played well throughout and very well for 35 minutes. Goals, in our case due to individual errors that have nothing to do with the setup, change games. 

 

So we're using xG to override the eye test of a goal, hitting the post, creating opportunities and chances now are we? 

 

It did work. Unless you're being deliberately obtuse or have an agenda, you should be able to be honest and separate the merits and success of a setup from individual errors within it.

 

Regardless of whether the game was gone, the cry was for subs to come on - all of which came on, played poorly individually, and made us worse collectively. The complaint is all a bit "the food here is terrible and the portions are too small" in my book.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 1 by Kid Icarus

[El Prontonise]

The first 30 mins was the best we've played on Anfield for a long time.  Rest of it, nah.

[SUPERTOON]

3 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Ah yes, the team selection was still somehow wrong despite it showing all of you up, of course.

 

We played well throughout and very well for 35 minutes. Goals, in our case due to individual errors that have nothing to do with the setup, change games. 

 

So we're using xG to override the eye test of a goal, hitting the post, creating opportunities and chances now are we? 

 

It did work. Unless you're being deliberately obtuse or have an agenda, you should be able to be honest and separate the merits and success of a setup from individual errors within it.

 

Regardless of whether the game was gone, the cry was for subs to come on - all of which came on, played poorly individually, and made us worse. The complaint is all a bit "the food here is terrible and the portions are too small" in my book.

 

 

 

 

 

We did need subs, just because they came on and made us worse doesn’t mean we didn’t need to make any. It’s an indictment of the summer window if anything.

[Mikky]

3 minutes ago, El Prontonise said:

The first 30 mins was the best we've played on Anfield for a long time.  Rest of it, nah.

I think that’s a sum up of our season tbh - we simply struggle to put a solid 90 min performance in 

 

Some of the goals we have conceded this have been very very poor - lacking the basics at times - countless games we’ve been soft defensively 

[Kid Icarus]

6 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

We did need subs, just because they came on and made us worse doesn’t mean we didn’t need to make any. It’s an indictment of the summer window if anything.

 

So if Howe was right to not bring players on if he thought - for whatever reason - that they weren't going to improve us, but who then do come on and make us worse, it's actually that he was still wrong in principle and they didn't improve us because he signed the wrong players.

 

 

Edited February 1 by Kid Icarus

[Sir Joel Inton]

To be fair, I’m talking to someone who has openly said nothing would change their viewpoint on this subject so it shouldn’t be too surprising for them to double down even in the most ridiculous of circumstances.

 

2 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

So if Howe was right to not bring players on if he thought - for whatever reason - that they weren't going to improve us, but who then do come on and make us worse, it's actually that he was still wrong in principle and they didn't improve us because he signed the wrong players.

 

 

 

 

Howay  You’re really saying the subs coming on at 3-1 down means if they came on at 2-1, the outcome would have been exactly the same? In the same breath as telling me to ignore xG because we hit the post.

 

 

Edited February 1 by Sir Joel Inton

[SUPERTOON]

1 minute ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

So if Howe was right to not bring players on if he thought - for whatever reason - that they weren't going to improve us, but who then do come on and make us worse, it's actually that he was still wrong in principle and they didn't improve us because he signed the wrong players.

 

 

 

The wider issue there would be we had over 100 million of strikers on the bench and he thought they would make us worse ? I don’t know how you could watch last night and think we didn’t need to make changes. Gordon in particular looked done physically.

[Kid Icarus]

1 minute ago, Sir Joel Inton said:

To be fair, I’m talking to someone who has openly said nothing would change their viewpoint on this subject so it shouldn’t be too surprising for them to double down even in the most ridiculous of circumstances.

 

 

Howay  You’re really saying the subs coming on at 3-1 down means if they came on at 2-1, the outcome would have been exactly the same? In the same breath as telling me to ignore xG because we hit the post.

 

 

 

Those two things don't compare.

 

Is the point you're making that if we'd brought the players who came on at 3-1 at 2-1 instead, we'd have improved?

 

All despite them all playing poorly individually and making us worse collectively when they actually did.

[Smal]

20 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

We played well throughout and very well for 35 minutes.

 

I’m surprised you think we played well throughout, mind. I don’t think we did much right after 35 minutes at all.

[Kid Icarus]

27 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

The wider issue there would be we had over 100 million of strikers on the bench and he thought they would make us worse ? I don’t know how you could watch last night and think we didn’t need to make changes. Gordon in particular looked done physically.

I did think it looked like we needed to make changes, but gave Howe the benefit of the doubt. When he did make changes and we saw the negative impact it had on our setup and saw their individual performances, I understood why he might have been reluctant.

 

 

Edited February 1 by Kid Icarus

[Kid Icarus]

40 minutes ago, KennyUtd said:

What I mean is it isn't our best performance at Anfield in 30 years. Isak's first game was a great display and we were robbed. We've drawn a couple at  Anfield in the last 10 years. Not great like, I agree 

We were robbed in that match, but a great deal of it was backs to the wall defending like. 

[Dr Venkman]

1 hour ago, Sir Joel Inton said:

 

Would be the best outcome for everyone, to be honest. Leaves us on a positive as he deserves and he’d do well for England imo.