Eddie Howe

[ponsaelius]

11 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

I don’t get the impression that the forwards were particularly well-thought out generally, and based on who we bid for initially there just looks like a confused approach (Pedro, Delap, Ekitike, Sesko, Strand Larsen).  There’s no joined-up thinking on show there - and this is before Isak was sold (whether they were being bought as a replacement is conjecture of course).

 

Top class strikers are are in short supply, hard to sign, and very expensive.

 

It's a position where you're not really in a position to be picky in terms of style. You try to get the best you can from a very small pool. There's also the fact that we had to try and save some face and signing high profile to replace Isak. It's why we have ended up with Woltemade, a highly rated player and full international for a top international side, but a bad fit for our current team (IMO). But I'm not sure we had many other options once we had failed on so many other targets.

 

 

Edited February 19 by ponsaelius

[Yorkie]

I believe Pedro was our first choice and if we'd managed to get him, the whole season looks quite different, in part because I think the summer looks a lot different too. But Chelsea got him cos PSR.

 

Delap was first in line but I think that's just because of the opportunistic nature of it. He was available at a really good price so we might as well have staked a claim. But Chelsea got him cos PSR.

 

Ekitike came after Pedro and was clearly seen as a like-for-like Isak replacement. But Liverpool got him cos PSR. 

 

Sesko was next but Man Utd got him cos PSR. Then we're scrambling a bit but thankfully the cartel had already shot their load, giving us a free run at Woltemade.

 

We still needed PL-proven quality though and I think Strand Larsen would have been the one if he was available at a decent price, but he wasn't. I think he would have done pretty well for us tbh.

 

That brings us to Wissa, who - for me - was always the 'if all else fails' option. I never felt he was identified as a Wilson replacement; that just felt like conjecture because he was a bit older and his FIFA number is probably closer to Wilson's than to Isak's. He's nothing like Wilson really, who was much more of an all-rounder and physical presence.

 

Notwithstanding his disastrous start, we were lucky Wissa fancied us so much. 

[TheBrownBottle]

46 minutes ago, huss9 said:

i dont like the new format but it has allowed some of the non-elite clubs like ourselves a greater chance of progressing to the knockouts.

you've the likes of Inter, Psg, both Madrids, Juve, Dortmund having to go again in the play-offs.

 

Thing is in financial terms we are elite - it’s reduced the chances of smaller clubs getting through to the latter stages.  
 

34 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

If their previous results are anything to go by, you'd assume Qarabag would make a pretty decent fist of the Conference League, which shows what a non-achievement it would be for us to go deep in that competition. 

 

In CL qualifying they comfortably beat Shelbourne (34th in the Conference) and Shkendija (22nd) and then knocked out Ferencvaros (12th in the Europa League) in the play-offs. 

 

Laughable that Palace have given themselves an extra hurdle in that competition. Hopefully Zrinjski just knock em out.

Yeah, agreed - it’s just a bit depressing.  I’m glad there’s three European competitions again, but it’s been obliterated as a spectacle. 

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, Yorkie said:

I believe Pedro was our first choice and if we'd managed to get him, the whole season looks quite different, in part because I think the summer looks a lot different too. But Chelsea got him cos PSR.

 

Delap was first in line but I think that's just because of the opportunistic nature of it. He was available at a really good price so we might as well have staked a claim. But Chelsea got him cos PSR.

 

Ekitike came after Pedro and was clearly seen as a like-for-like Isak replacement. But Liverpool got him cos PSR. 

 

Sesko was next but Man Utd got him cos PSR. Then we're scrambling a bit but thankfully the cartel had already shot their load, giving us a free run at Woltemade.

 

We still needed PL-proven quality though and I think Strand Larsen would have been the one if he was available at a decent price, but he wasn't. I think he would have done pretty well for us tbh.

 

That brings us to Wissa, who - for me - was always the 'if all else fails' option. I never felt he was identified as a Wilson replacement; that just felt like conjecture because he was a bit older and his FIFA number is probably closer to Wilson's than to Isak's. He's nothing like Wilson really, who was much more of an all-rounder and physical presence.

 

Notwithstanding his disastrous start, we were lucky Wissa fancied us so much. 

Mind, I think it’s more than PSR.  Chelsea are a far more attractive club and can pay massive wages.  I’m not at all convinced that PSR is the only reason a player would choose another club. 

[Scoot]

2 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Mind, I think it’s more than PSR.  Chelsea are a far more attractive club and can pay massive wages.  I’m not at all convinced that PSR is the only reason a player would choose another club. 

 

But PSR is the reason we can't pay massive wages.

[Yorkie]

1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Yeah, agreed - it’s just a bit depressing.  I’m glad there’s three European competitions again, but it’s been obliterated as a spectacle. 

 

I think the Conference League is great providing the PL entrant is fucking it up for themselves, like Palace are doing this season. Theoretically I think it's pretty competitive immediately beneath that one outlier. Last season, the eventual victor was totally inevitable and so it was degrading from that point of view, but it was pretty cool that a team like Djurgarden got to the semis, and if you look at the knockout bracket, the vast majority of ties were really competitive (can remember really enjoying rooting for Shamrock who were narrowly knocked out by Molde on pens, for eg).

[Yorkie]

7 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Mind, I think it’s more than PSR.  Chelsea are a far more attractive club and can pay massive wages.  I’m not at all convinced that PSR is the only reason a player would choose another club. 

 

Chelsea already had like four strikers on their books by the time they got Pedro, including Delap who they'd also just signed. If the financial regulations were applied less anti-competitively, there's no way they could go straight back into the market for another extremely coveted attacker. See ManU with Mbeumo and Cunha and Sesko / Liverpool with Wirtz and Ekitike and Isak.

 

PSR funnels the most coveted players to those clubs, basically 

[The College Dropout]

I don't consider this play-off any further than that second group stage we were in.

 

Getting to the last 16 is a genuine new step for us though.

 

We've also been lucky with the tie. Monaco would've been a tougher test and a more typical level that you would expect.

 

Last season City didn't make the last 16 for the first time in yonks

[TRon]

40 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Mind, I think it’s more than PSR.  Chelsea are a far more attractive club and can pay massive wages.  I’m not at all convinced that PSR is the only reason a player would choose another club. 

 

For foreign players Chelsea have the added attraction of being in a swanky part of London. Other than that though, they were not really considered one of the top clubs before Abramovic's £billions investement into the squad transformed them into one. 

[Yorkie]

1 minute ago, TRon said:

 

For foreign players Chelsea have the added attraction of being in a swanky part of London. Other than that though, they were not really considered one of the top clubs before Abramovic's £billions investement into the squad transformed them into one. 

 

Who knows what's true and what isn't when it comes to transfer speculation, but my recollection of the situation is that Pedro was keen to come here before Chelsea swooped in. The point about PSR is: whatever Chelsea's appeal is - they're not at the table if the rules don't accommodate their ability to just buy and buy and buy. 

[SteV]

21 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

I don't consider this play-off any further than that second group stage we were in.

 

Getting to the last 16 is a genuine new step for us though.

 

We've also been lucky with the tie. Monaco would've been a tougher test and a more typical level that you would expect.

 

Last season City didn't make the last 16 for the first time in yonks

The second group stage was the last 16, in literal terms anyway. But I get it does kinda feel different here.

 

Although getting to the QF’s would be genuinely groundbreaking.

[TheBrownBottle]

48 minutes ago, Scoot said:

 

But PSR is the reason we can't pay massive wages.

I’m willing to bet that if we offer a player £300k a week and Chelsea offer £250k that player is still more likely to go to Chelsea than us. 

[PauloGeordio]

[TheBrownBottle]

10 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

For foreign players Chelsea have the added attraction of being in a swanky part of London. Other than that though, they were not really considered one of the top clubs before Abramovic's £billions investement into the squad transformed them into one. 

They never were - but they’re now the UK’s most successful club this century with the added appeal of being situated in one of the most desirable places to live on earth. 

[Mike]

Where is the gif of him being awkward as fuck at the boxing match. 

[Coffee_Johnny]

After the great win midweek, thought I would have a look at how our current glorious leader, who is second best behind Keegan in terms of overall league performance (points per game wise), compares to  Keegan, Daglish, and Robson in terms of performances in cup games. The first hidden section gives an overview, the second gives a breakdown by cup competition. I have left out the 6 Anglo Italian games (W1 D3 L2) in Keegan's first season--as it was a competition for second tier sides only--but included League Cup and FA cup games for his team that one season in the old First Division/Championship. I have included Champions League and UEFA league games, as relevant, for all managers. I have used 'games' rather than ties as the rules around replays have changed. 

 

Questions (from these four):

1. Who has managed the most cup games?

2. Who has won the most cup games?

3. Whose team has scored the most cup goals?

4. Which manager has the best goal difference?  

5. Which manager has the best win percentage?

 

See how many you got right. 

 

Overview and answers:

Spoiler

 

1. Who has managed the most cup games: Robson

2. Who has won the most cup games: Howe

3. Whose team has scored the most cup goals: Robson 

4. Which manager has the best goal difference: Keegan  

5. Which manager has the best win percentage: Howe

 

 

 

Breakdown by competition:

Spoiler

 

 

 

Edited February 20 by Coffee_Johnny

[AyeDubbleYoo]

On 19/02/2026 at 13:19, Yorkie said:

I believe Pedro was our first choice and if we'd managed to get him, the whole season looks quite different, in part because I think the summer looks a lot different too. But Chelsea got him cos PSR.

 

Delap was first in line but I think that's just because of the opportunistic nature of it. He was available at a really good price so we might as well have staked a claim. But Chelsea got him cos PSR.

 

Ekitike came after Pedro and was clearly seen as a like-for-like Isak replacement. But Liverpool got him cos PSR. 

 

Sesko was next but Man Utd got him cos PSR. Then we're scrambling a bit but thankfully the cartel had already shot their load, giving us a free run at Woltemade.

 

We still needed PL-proven quality though and I think Strand Larsen would have been the one if he was available at a decent price, but he wasn't. I think he would have done pretty well for us tbh.

 

That brings us to Wissa, who - for me - was always the 'if all else fails' option. I never felt he was identified as a Wilson replacement; that just felt like conjecture because he was a bit older and his FIFA number is probably closer to Wilson's than to Isak's. He's nothing like Wilson really, who was much more of an all-rounder and physical presence.

 

Notwithstanding his disastrous start, we were lucky Wissa fancied us so much. 

 

Guess Wissa was on the list for if Isak stayed as well. 

[Nucasol]

1 hour ago, Coffee_Johnny said:

After the great win midweek, thought I would have a look at how our current glorious leader, who is second best behind Keegan in terms of overall league performance (points per game wise), compares to  Keegan, Daglish, and Robson in terms of performances in cup games. The first hidden section gives an overview, the second gives a breakdown by cup competition. I have left out the 6 Anglo Italian games (W1 D3 L2) in Keegan's first season--as it was a competition for second tier sides only--but included League Cup and FA cup games for his team that one season in the old First Division/Championship. I have included Champions League and UEFA league games, as relevant, for all managers. I have used 'games' rather than ties as the rules around replays have changed. 

 

Questions (from these four):

1. Who has managed the most cup games?

2. Who has won the most cup games?

3. Whose team has scored the most cup goals?

4. Which manager has the best goal difference?  

5. Which manager has the best win percentage?

 

See how many you got right. 

 

Overview and answers:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

1. Who has managed the most cup games: Robson

2. Who has won the most cup games: Howe

3. Whose team has scored the most cup goals: Robson 

4. Which manager has the best goal difference: Keegan  

5. Which manager has the best win percentage: Howe

 

 

 

Breakdown by competition:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

 

Cracking stats.

[timeEd32]

4 hours ago, Coffee_Johnny said:

After the great win midweek, thought I would have a look at how our current glorious leader, who is second best behind Keegan in terms of overall league performance (points per game wise), compares to  Keegan, Daglish, and Robson in terms of performances in cup games. The first hidden section gives an overview, the second gives a breakdown by cup competition. I have left out the 6 Anglo Italian games (W1 D3 L2) in Keegan's first season--as it was a competition for second tier sides only--but included League Cup and FA cup games for his team that one season in the old First Division/Championship. I have included Champions League and UEFA league games, as relevant, for all managers. I have used 'games' rather than ties as the rules around replays have changed. 

 

Questions (from these four):

1. Who has managed the most cup games?

2. Who has won the most cup games?

3. Whose team has scored the most cup goals?

4. Which manager has the best goal difference?  

5. Which manager has the best win percentage?

 

See how many you got right. 

 

Overview and answers:

  Hide contents

 

1. Who has managed the most cup games: Robson

2. Who has won the most cup games: Howe

3. Whose team has scored the most cup goals: Robson 

4. Which manager has the best goal difference: Keegan  

5. Which manager has the best win percentage: Howe

 

 

 

Breakdown by competition:

  Hide contents

 

 

 

 

 

An 81% win% in 22 League Cup games is outrageous and still not appreciated nearly enough.

[Vinny Green Balls]

25 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

 

An 81% win% in 22 League Cup games is outrageous and still not appreciated nearly enough.

and half of ours defeats just happened.

[timeEd32]

On 19/02/2026 at 08:47, The College Dropout said:

I don't consider this play-off any further than that second group stage we were in.

 

Getting to the last 16 is a genuine new step for us though.

 

We've also been lucky with the tie. Monaco would've been a tougher test and a more typical level that you would expect.

 

Last season City didn't make the last 16 for the first time in yonks

Not having this fortunate playoff draw thing as a way to diminish our Champions League performance. 
 

There were five clubs in the league phase with a double digit negative goal difference and no chance of qualifying in the last week: Ajax, Frankfurt, Slavia Prague, Villarreal, and Kairat.

 

- Arsenal played Kairat and Prague

- Liverpool played Frankfurt 

- Tottenham played Frankfurt, Prague, and Villareal

- Chelsea played Ajax

- Man City played Villareal

 

We didn’t play any of them.

 

Chelsea also played Pafos, who got 7 of their 9 points from those bad teams, and Qarabag, who is now the worst team ever.

 

Tottenham also played Copenhagen who were 31st, so they played half of their games against the bottom 6.

 

We’ve earned our way to the last 16.

[TheBrownBottle]

45 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

Not having this fortunate playoff draw thing as a way to diminish our Champions League performance. 
 

There were five clubs in the league phase with a double digit negative goal difference and no chance of qualifying in the last week: Ajax, Frankfurt, Slavia Prague, Villarreal, and Kairat.

 

- Arsenal played Kairat and Prague

- Liverpool played Frankfurt 

- Tottenham played Frankfurt, Prague, and Villareal

- Chelsea played Ajax

- Man City played Villareal

 

We didn’t play any of them.

 

Chelsea also played Pafos, who got 7 of their 9 points from those bad teams, and Qarabag, who is now the worst team ever.

 

Tottenham also played Copenhagen who were 31st, so they played half of their games against the bottom 6.

 

We’ve earned our way to the last 16.

We had as hard a set of group fixtures as we could pretty much get and did very well to accumulate the tally we did.  Marseille (a) was the only ‘dud’ performance out of eight - pretty good going.  Howe also seems to have Enrique’s number.  I think the ‘first ever knockout qualifying’ thing is a load of bollocks mind, given that we’d have qualified in 02/03 if they hadn’t changed the format to a second group stage. 
 

Can’t agree re Qarabag mind - this isn’t being wise after the event, plenty of us thought they were shite and would be steamrolled easily.  Non league Macclesfield have beaten Palace and narrowly lost to Brentford by an own goal in the space of a month - does that mean that Macclesfield are a really good side now?  Of course it doesn’t.  Football gives everyone a puncher’s chance, but Qarabag would struggle in the top two tiers of English football.  They’re pap. 

[TheBrownBottle]

58 minutes ago, Vinny Green Balls said:

and half of ours defeats just happened.

It’s the standard of opposition we’ve played in that competition which makes his record in it really impressive for me - the cup draws have been ridiculously loaded with PL sides.  To have that record is pretty incredible. 

[Heron]

1 hour ago, timeEd32 said:

Not having this fortunate playoff draw thing as a way to diminish our Champions League performance. 
 

There were five clubs in the league phase with a double digit negative goal difference and no chance of qualifying in the last week: Ajax, Frankfurt, Slavia Prague, Villarreal, and Kairat.

 

- Arsenal played Kairat and Prague

- Liverpool played Frankfurt 

- Tottenham played Frankfurt, Prague, and Villareal

- Chelsea played Ajax

- Man City played Villareal

 

We didn’t play any of them.

 

Chelsea also played Pafos, who got 7 of their 9 points from those bad teams, and Qarabag, who is now the worst team ever.

 

Tottenham also played Copenhagen who were 31st, so they played half of their games against the bottom 6.

 

We’ve earned our way to the last 16.

Just been looking there and we played 4 from the bottom section, 4 from the middle and 1 from the top. So decided to keep myself entertained and assign 1 point to section 3, 2 to the middle section (where we are) and 3 points to the top section.  In terms of difficulty (based on end group position) English sides have faced;

 

Chelsea 18pts

Arsenal 16pts

Liverpool 16pts

Spurs 16pts

Man City 14pts

Newcastle 14pts

 

Chelsea faced the most top 8 sides with 2. Liverpool, Man City and Spurs played no top 8 sides.

 

In the middle section Man City played 6 with us and Chelsea playing 3.

 

Bottom section Spurs, Liverpool and us played 4 and Man City played 2.

 

Interestingly, in the group phase only Chelsea and Newcastle finished below teams they'd played - with 2 each.

 

However, by the time we've played Qarabag again we'd have 18pts and be topping that list with Chelsea. Having beat a mid table team twice (hopefully!), and arguably having worked harder to get through than the rest despite not performing best to get through.

 

Worthwhile noting that we haven't spent years upon years building our squad like the other English sides too.

 

As you mentioned we played none of the bottom quarter or so of the group phase though. So, I think I'd finally conclude that we absolutely deserve our place in the last 16 having done well enough to get into a decent playoff position and secure an easier tie in the playoff phase. Despite the fact Man City and us have probably under-performed in the competition ever so slightly. Looking at the games played though it's only really the loss at Marseille that is not really all that good. Had we drawn that we'd have finished above all but one of the teams we played, who finished top 8 and we'd have still finished just outside. Top of the playoff section. The 9th best side. Says it all.

 

Finally - I have no idea why I've bothered my arse doing this explanation. But hey ho. I hope you enjoyed.

 

 

Edited February 20 by Heron

[The College Dropout]

I think our CL league performances are under rated. We really slapped some decent teams.