Eddie Howe

[Miercoles]

I'm excited for the run in with one game a week, wouldn't be surprised if we charge back up the table to a respectable position.

[Kid Icarus]

2 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

The mitigating factors only mitigate certain things though. They don't mitigate all of it.

I fucking love Eddie. I don't think there are many more genuine, hardworking and inspirational figures in the game of football and we have been lucky to have him. And we might continue to be lucky to have him. But you can't argue that some fundamental things have to change for that to happen?
What he has achieved will never be forgotten and no amount of shit performance will erase the brilliant moments he has given us. The way he has represented the club has been a breath of fresh air after the precession of chancers and arseholes we had to endure before him. And it's fucking sad to type this stuff and feel this way but it is playing out in front of our eyes.

 

Do we place sentiment above our desire for this club to keep improving?

Could he give us another exciting season after this one? Yeah, probably. Could he do it with the same playbook as the past few season? I doubt it.

I believe we've seen enough to suggest his approach has a ceiling and I think we've already hit it and bounced off it. But I genuinely hope i'm wrong.

 

 

I don't class any of it as sentiment FWIW. I love all of the connection stuff, the way he represents us etc. But what he's done is more important and that isn't sentiment, it's evidence - and he has it in abundance. I think it's really sad to see that a manager can have four amazing seasons of overachievement, then one season of underachievement with tons of mitigating factors, and it's the one year with tons of mitigating circumstances that gets the credence. 

 

 

[The Bonk]

10 hours ago, Wallsendmag said:

 

Another ticket price hike in that time. My mate has seen his and his bairns ticket cost almost double. Hasn't done anything to stop the illegal selling of tickets on 3rd party sites. I don't think he's offered anything to make the "fan experience" any better as of yet.

 

Fair points and I hate to say it, but prices will keep going up to attract a higher earning match going fan. I used to work for an agency (subsidiary of InFront Media) that built digital products and strategy for football clubs. I specifically worked with Chelsea, AS Roma, Juve and Napoli in my time there. Chelsea were the catalyst for "football tourists" under Abramovich and built an entire digital strategy to breakdown the ARPU (average revenue per user) of every match going fan. That data was then used to work with commercial partners to increase the value of those relationships and open new revenue channels. I'm sure this is a continued strategy under Clearlake and Todd "the human capitalist" Boehly.

This is happening at NUFC, I guarantee it, Hopkinson has been doing this his whole career and he worked under Guy Lawrence at MLSE, who was also CEO at Chelsea when I worked with them.  What sucks is that due to PSR (now SCR), the typical, local match going fan is going to be priced out of league games in favour of higher ARPU revenue "football tourists".  This is the only way to keep this club closer to the big clubs who have had a decade plus of building these revenue streams. If the club is competitive and in Europe, everything will get more expensive over time to maintain growth.

Another thing Eddie does well is player improvement, which in a handcuffed SCR world is highly valuable to a club like us that will need to sell on better players to keep adding to the depth of our overall squad. There aren't a lot of managers that have this ability or Eddie's track record in doing so.

[Geordie Ahmed]

25 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

That's the issue isn't it? And why I was so against any appointment being ran by him. Many people disagreed with me which is fine but this is the kind of issue which gets created. 

 

Still can't believe he mentioned PSR and Isak in his post match conference.  

 

The clip that is doing the rounds has been intentionally edited so it only starts from his answer, which makes it out like he was talking about yesterday's game and then started blurting on about PSR

 

The reality is he was asked a specific question around the upcoming transfer window and momentum so his answer about PSR and Isak made complete sense 

 

Obviously showing the full context would not have generated the same level of reaction and clicks 

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

Aye, watched his full press conference with the written press, nothing controversial in it at all. 

[Holmesy]

1 minute ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

I don't class any of it as sentiment FWIW. I love all of the connection stuff, the way he represents us etc. But what he's done is more important and that isn't sentiment, it's evidence - and he has it in abundance. I think it's really sad to see that a manager can have four amazing seasons of overachievement, then one season of underachievement with tons of mitigating factors, and it's the one year with tons of mitigating circumstances that gets the credence. 

 

 

You're only as good as your last result unfortunately. What he did at Bournemouth was exceptional but eventually he bounced off a ceiling and took them down. It happens.

 

You look at the situation and say "he's done it before and i'm confident he'll do it again.".

 

I look at it and see a league that has changed, a clear pattern emerging when we play in Europe, a playbook that has become stale and ineffective, and no visible signs that our glaring weaknesses are being addressed. 

I'm sure you see the same things as well, but where we differ is that you have ultimate faith he will address them and turn it around. I'm rapidly losing mine.

 

[SEMTEX]

Just now, Holmesy said:

You're only as good as your last result unfortunately.

 

This isn't a thing.

[TRC]

I think the lack of fodder in the league this season has hurt us too. Last season we took 18 points from the relegated teams and they were easy games where we could coast it, this year its going to be 13-14 and they have been close and a fight.

[The Prophet]

27 minutes ago, KaKa said:

 

It was off the back of the whole Minteh and Anderson drama and Amanda and Mehrdad leaving.

 

I think there was and it was driven by Eales who had previous with Mitchell.

 

Possibly, it was off the back of a long, failed pursuit of Dougie Freedman. It whiffs of a favour to a mate.

[Kid Icarus]

1 minute ago, Holmesy said:

You're only as good as your last result unfortunately. What he did at Bournemouth was exceptional but eventually he bounced off a ceiling and took them down. It happens.

 

You look at the situation and say "he's done it before and i'm confident he'll do it again.".

 

I look at it and see a league that has changed, a clear pattern emerging when we play in Europe, a playbook that has become stale and ineffective, and no visible signs that our glaring weaknesses are being addressed. 

I'm sure you see the same things as well, but where we differ is that you have ultimate faith he will address them and turn it around. I'm rapidly losing mine.

 

Unless you're Real Madrid I don't think that's the case tbh. 

 

I don't see those things and automatically think 'The thing that needs to change here is our manager' no. I think it's absolutely crackers. 

[Holmesy]

1 minute ago, SEMTEX said:

 

This isn't a thing.

OK. Tell that to all those managers who have been sacked after getting teams promoted, winning cups, winning leagues etc.
Football is one of the most ruthless businesses in the world, and the most successful teams tend to be the most ruthless - Man City, Real Madrid, Juventus, Liverpool, Man Utd, PSG, the list goes on.

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

Ferguson was repeatedly fired and re-hired when Man Utd didn’t win the league. 

[Stuy_O]

34 minutes ago, Armchair Pundit said:

Definitely oversimplifying a lot there imo, I'm not having some of them as being fact either:

 

The argument against:

He only has one playbook (by his own admission) and when that doesn't work, it's more of the same.

Fair enough, but hasn't always been the case. High intensity press which was successful for us was a lot easier when we had less games.

We are as defensively disorganised as we have been for a very long time and nothing seems to be changing.

We've had far less available training time due to more games and more travelling, something that needs addressing.

We have had two European seasons now where our league form has suffered, suggesting his style is not suited to an intense campaign on two fronts.

It suggests nothing of the sort, more that we've completely over-stretched with a squad lacking in quality in depth, than anything else.

The signings made in the summer were not good and have set us back significantly.

How was that Eddie's fault? Having to bring in two strikers at short notice, essentially emergency choices, following the loss of two established strikers, one of whom Eddie was trying to build the team around.

We are not seeing the individual player improvements we have in the past. Maybe due to lack of time on the training pitch, but if our only answer to a congested fixture list is to not train, that points to a bigger, overarching problem.

So again, how is that down to Eddie if there's been no time to train and a thin squad on quality?

Our away form has been shocking for a good while

Not idea, but probably leads quite easily into the aforementioned reasons of squad depth and lack of training, again and maybe the one failing around trying to stick to a preferred setup.

Our performances in second halves of games this season have been consistently poor.

That one, maybe fatigue, maybe mental fragility, definitely needs looking at.

His plan A only approach means in-game changes are largely limited to substitutions, which often come too late

Generally, it's been more around the players being like for like than being too late in a game, but then, it's been hit and miss on whether they've been successful or not. There's been an equal amount for me where subs have paid off.

We cannot close out games

Covered by numerous previous reasons potentially, all can have an effect on it - whether that's a lack of quality depth, a lack of decent training time, issues around burn-out. It is one area though where I'd like to see us be stronger defensively.

We cannot retain possession, which is the key reason for the point above

Not really any different to the previous answer.

Teams are routinely getting beyond our midfield and into our defence with 1-3 passes and it isn't being addressed

Only really during the poor second half games from what I've seen - reasons previously mentioned affected that.

He doesn't seem good at working with a DoF

Where's the proof of that? Dan Stapleton got on alright with him, until he dicked the club over to go to Man Utd. Mitchell was a prick that just caused problems all round and there's nothing really to show Eddie isn't getting on with the current DoF.

We have consistently struggled to break down stubborn defences due to a lack of technical prowess and guile in midfield

Not sure I agree with that, the biggest problem for me has been the lack of strikers that can finish, just like at the other end having a reliable goalkeeper.

 

We have 'some' issues that Eddie needs to address, but nothing unattainable, the majority for me is outside of his control or certainly mitigated by factors outside of his control. Regardless of the amazing overachieving we've done since Eddie came onboard, the things holding us back isn't the manager.

 

For the record, if you read the above and it sets light to your hair, it's just the way I see it, in opposition to your views perhaps, but after seeing the shit times of losing managers like Keegan the first time, Sir Bobby, some of the better managers we've had, then seen them replaced by dross and regretting it massively, I'd hate to lose Eddie under similar circumstances.

who is Dan Stapleton? 

[Kid Icarus]

1 minute ago, Holmesy said:

OK. Tell that to all those managers who have been sacked after getting teams promoted, winning cups, winning leagues etc.
Football is one of the most ruthless businesses in the world, and the most successful teams tend to be the most ruthless - Man City, Real Madrid, Juventus, Liverpool, Man Utd, PSG, the list goes on.

 

Those clubs can take their pick of nigh on any manager they want, we can't. I think you'd find if we were in that position there'd be less patience with Howe. Even then, Real Madrid aside those clubs have allowed successful managers to have off seasons - Guardiola and Klopp have had poor seasons. 

[Menace]

I think the era of a manager staying at a club for 10-15 years is done tbh - Simeone probably the last of a dying breed.

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

Juventus  their ruthlessness is doing great work. Don't forget those giants of the game Watford too, arguably the most ruthless club in world football. 

[Armchair Pundit]

8 minutes ago, Stuy_O said:

who is Dan Stapleton? 

 

Haha, good point, not sure - meant Ashworth ofc (fixed the original )

 

 

Edited March 23 by Armchair Pundit

[Holmesy]

12 minutes ago, Shays Given Tim Flowers said:

Ferguson was repeatedly fired and re-hired when Man Utd didn’t win the league. 

One example referencing one of the greatest managers of all time, who himself was a ruthless fuckers - he constantly changed his coaching staff to keep things fresh, dropped players when they didn't perform and sold players when they questioned his authority. The mere fact that an off-season for him was not winning the league tells you everything. He, and they as a club at the time, were an anomaly.

Look at Pep at City as well - although his teams are built from the same DNA, his current city team are a far cry from his first, his Barca team, his Bayern team. At one point last season, they had played more long balls than any other team in the PL. He is ruthless with players - when they don't hit his standards any more, they are moved on. No room for sentiment when results are the name of the game.

Pep mixes things up, adjusts his game-plans when he feels teams are starting to get to grips with them, and evolves constantly.

We have the same gameplan we had at the start, the same coaching team we had at the start, play the same formation we played at the start, and we have adjusted very little.

I know this is moving away from the original point, but it's worth mentioning. 

 

 

 

Edited March 23 by Holmesy

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

It really isn't. 

[Kid Icarus]

If anything Pep should be being used an example of why mitigating circumstances are huge and why you should give managers who you know can be successful time. 

 

Their end of their previous era ended in Summer 2024 and the new one started in January 2025, £500m spent in a year, yet they still aren't a cohesive team that can win consistently. 

 

 

Edited March 23 by Kid Icarus

[Holmesy]

1 minute ago, Shays Given Tim Flowers said:

It really isn't. 

Your contributions to this forum and this discussion are enlightening. Please don't ever leave.

[Holmesy]

2 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

If anything Pep should be being used an example of why mitigating circumstances are huge and why you should give managers who you know can be successful time. 

 

Their end of their previous era ended in Summer 2024 and started in January 2025, £500m spent in a year, yet they still aren't a cohesive team that can win consistently. 

 

 

 

But they are still there or thereabouts. And I absolutely take your point about the money spent because it needs to be mentioned.
But their drop-off is usually one or two league places. They will still have a mean defence, still have a potent attack, will still play good football and will challenge for honours.

Let's say we give Eddie this season as on off-season - what would we have to see next season for it to have been worth backing and keeping him?

 

[Kid Icarus]

1 minute ago, Holmesy said:

But they are still there or thereabouts. And I absolutely take your point about the money spent because it needs to be mentioned.
But their drop-off is usually one or two league places. They will still have a mean defence, still have a potent attack, will still play good football and will challenge for honours.

Let's say we give Eddie this season as on off-season - what would we have to see next season for it to have been worth backing and keeping him?

 

It's all relative though, their par is PL champions, probably SF of the Champions League, then one of the cups. Finishing 3rd and probably 2nd, getting battered in the CL, winning the League Cup and being in with a shout of the FA Cup is well below par for a team with their nigh on limitless resources and existing squad. 

 

I think most would agree that based on our resources par is ~8th in the league and a cup run depending on who we get drawn. Howe has delivered finishes not just matching that, but all above and beyond that. In the process he's 100% set a rod for his own back by making overachievement the expectation imo. 

[Turnbull2000]

27 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

But they are still there or thereabouts. And I absolutely take your point about the money spent because it needs to be mentioned.
But their drop-off is usually one or two league places. They will still have a mean defence, still have a potent attack, will still play good football and will challenge for honours.

Let's say we give Eddie this season as on off-season - what would we have to see next season for it to have been worth backing and keeping him?

 

 

Dropping 1 or 2 places from where our wage bill suggests we should be would be finishing 9-10th. 4th, 7th and 5th has been us over-performing under Howe so far. There's still a chance we'll have a par finish of 8th this season.

 

Hopefully we get shot of Wissa, and maybe even Elanga and Woltemade during the summer do a less panic driven transfer window, and have an opportunity to over perform next season with a 4-6th placed finish. But fans who think we should be top 4-6 every season are deluding themselves.

 

 

Edited March 23 by Turnbull2000

[mayubeproud]

9 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

One example referencing one of the greatest managers of all time, who himself was a ruthless fuckers - he constantly changed his coaching staff to keep things fresh, dropped players when they didn't perform and sold players when they questioned his authority. The mere fact that an off-season for him was not winning the league tells you everything. He, and they as a club at the time, were an anomaly.

Look at Pep at City as well - although his teams are built from the same DNA, his current city team are a far cry from his first, his Barca team, his Bayern team. At one point last season, they had played more long balls than any other team in the PL. He is ruthless with players - when they don't hit his standards any more, they are moved on. No room for sentiment when results are the name of the game.

Pep mixes things up, adjusts his game-plans when he feels teams are starting to get to grips with them, and evolves constantly.

We have the same gameplan we had at the start, the same coaching team we had at the start, play the same formation we played at the start, and we have adjusted very little.

I know this is moving away from the original point, but it's worth mentioning. 

 

 

 

 

One point to add, a lot of the greatest managers prefer relationism (over positionism). It adapts to the evolution of the game better in general.

 

Ferguson or Ancelotti for example, they never have a fixed "system" or formation, it's very hard to describe what type of football they play, but they simply always win with whatever players they get.

 

Arsene Wenger to a great extent, although he wasn't as successful in his last 10 years, possibly down to his struggle in finding balance between freedom and discipline of the players.

 

Managers who prefer positionism often have shorter period of success.

 

Mourinho for example, he was very successful for about 10 years only. I don't think he is an extreme believer in positionism though, he sometimes blend relationism into his game, e.g. utilising Sneijer at Inter or Ozil at Real Madrid for creativity with success. So he is still somewhat relevant now, but never as successful as before.

 

Rafa Benitez has even shorter period of success.

 

Pep Guardiola seems to be an outlier, he clearly favours positionism. But as you said, Pep's "system" itself also evolves over time, and thus prolonging his period of relevance. His "syle" now is very different from his original Barca team.

 

The conclusion is, if a manager's "system" is more rigid, his lifetime of success almost always tend to be shorter.