Eddie Howe

[Heron]

49 minutes ago, Mills and Boon said:

 

Hall, Miley, Livramento, Osula and Anderson all young players who got game time under Howe. Minteh would have too if not for PSR shenanigans 

Just another falsehood that gets spouted tbh. Howe has developed a lot of our players into better players, especially young ones, and they've had game time where possible. This is why I get annoyed about a lot of the Howe out discussion. I can have a lot more respect if folk base it on his tactics and squad selection but there's a lot of inaccurate reasoning now developing which simply are not true or are contradictory to other points being made yet added to the same pile.

[DC Magpie]

57 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

On the matter of expecting green shoots/better performances in this run of games.

 

I was totally of that opinion/expectation too. What I didn't anticipate was the extent of the psychological damage from the Barcelona/Sunderland double-whammy. We probably could've kept it from spiralling had we ground out any sort of result at Palace, but we lost in horrific fashion again, taking confidence from low to subterranean. Rot fully established and season all but over. Where do we go from here and do we even have the stones for it any more?

 

So, to that end, it feels like any gains to be felt from the relaxed schedule may have been undermined by the mental state of everyone, and - you could argue - it's not really a true test of Howe's ability to turn the boat around via the training pitch.

 

Does that afford him the grace to go again no matter what happens? Dunno, maybe not. The point is that, I don't think what's happening in this final run should be viewed as compelling evidence of his ability to manage the club. 

 

Ironically if the swell of the relegation zone really does start lapping at our feet, it'll give us something critical to fight for and that might be reflected in performances.

Sorry in advance for the length (if I had a dime for each time I’ve had to say that…..)

 

A well reasoned post. It took me a sec to digest. I’d be more sympathetic to the argument that the seeds of ruin were planted before our three week hiatus but all I kept hearing (admittedly I’m new to this) is that Eddie is a master when he has time on the training pitch. Now our form is arguably worse than it was when we were playing twice a week. We’ve tried nothing new at all. 
 

If the excuse now is that we were already screwed and the team’s confidence is subterranean, then it’s our manager’s job to fix it. But as I’ve said before, once a coach has lost his team’s confidence it’s gone forever.  Bill Belichick won six super bowls but when things went to shit he got shown the door. Respectfully, of course. 
 

There was a bit of a row earlier about new-ish fans not knowing our history etc. That’s true but the counter-argument to that is that some longer-term fans may be so smitten with what Eddie has done in years past that they can’t see what seems so so obvious to some of us newbies re our current form and our future prospects under Eddie. Mostly it’s an abject inability to adapt or change a championship-level system that has clearly been figured out by everyone we play. 
 

To me the worst case scenario is keeping Eddie this summer and then sacking him before Christmas. And that appears to be precisely where this ship is sailing. 

[Theregulars]

5 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

Good point. Don't know what I was thinking advocating pro-active in-game management. What a dick!

It’s more just that your point didn’t work,  because facts got in the way. Farke’s proactivity produced the same outcome as what you identify as Howe’s reactivity.

[Heron]

5 hours ago, leffe186 said:

More than Man City or Arsenal?

Yeah we had. Was because of the Qarabag games.

[Holmesy]

2 minutes ago, Theregulars said:

It’s more just that your point didn’t work,  because facts got in the way. Farke’s proactivity produced the same outcome as what you identify as Howe’s reactivity.

And because it happened once means it will never work. Solid logic!
Farke gave his team a better chance of winning the game by reacting to what he saw on the pitch. Same as Flick did with Barca when they ended up dry bumming us.
It's not some new fangled concept pal, it's called football management.

[Theregulars]

2 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

And because it happened once means it will never work. Solid logic!
Farke gave his team a better chance of winning the game by reacting to what he saw on the pitch. Same as Flick did with Barca when they ended up dry bumming us.
It's not some new fangled concept pal, it's called football management.

Mind how you go, mate.

[Hovagod]

5 minutes ago, Heron said:

Yeah we had. Was because of the Qarabag games.

And we got a perfect opportunity to play reserves and kids in the second of those games, he didn’t take it. 

[leffe186]

6 minutes ago, Heron said:

Yeah we had. Was because of the Qarabag games.

Oh yeah, forgot about the extra round.

[Heron]

5 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

And because it happened once means it will never work. Solid logic!
Farke gave his team a better chance of winning the game by reacting to what he saw on the pitch. Same as Flick did with Barca when they ended up dry bumming us.
It's not some new fangled concept pal, it's called football management.

Why do you be so condescending in much of what you write in this thread?

 

Doing something different does not constitute as doing something better necessarily. The whole purpose of doing something different is to influence positive change. Leeds still lost the game. The changes made did not achieve the desired outcome. We could change Howe for Glasner and be relegated next season - would that constitute as good management from the board? Have Spurs managed their club well sacking countless managers and slowly dissipating into the abyss?

 

 

Edited April 26 by Heron

[Heron]

1 minute ago, Hovagod said:

And we got a perfect opportunity to play reserves and kids in the second of those games, he didn’t take it. 

Agreed.

[Theregulars]

Just now, Heron said:

Why do you be so condescending in much of what you right in this thread?

 

Doing something different does not constitute as doing something better necessarily. The whole purpose of doing something different is to influence positive change. Leeds still lost the game. The changes made did not achieve the desired outcome. We could change Howe for Glasner and be relegated next season - would that constitute as good management from the board? Have Spurs managed their club well sacking countless managers and slowly dissipating into the abyss?

It’s the potent mixture of condescending and stupid which makes him particularly memorable.

[toontownman]

Shocked but I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the amount of online vitriol towards Eddie.

 

Saddened more than anything else. I wish all of our fanbase had a modicum of the humility, class and respect he holds himself in and has since joining us. 

 

Whether you feel its time for him to go or not, (obviously either is fine btw), refering to him as the "PE teacher" "failed miserably" "fucking coward" etc. Just a few if the labels I saw online (not here) is borderline unbelievable. 

 

This section of our "fanbase" neither deserves nice things and has certainly forgotten Eddie gave us that barely a year ago. 

 

Thanks for keeping it generally classy here people. I mean as classy as we are all naturally capable and uncapable of. 🤣

[TRon]

1 hour ago, rgk_lfc said:

There have been plenty of managers over the last 25 years who have impressed in various shapes and forms. But only a select few have proven to have the ability to cross that final divide - win the PL, compete in the CL as they belong, win a cup playing excellent, outstanding football, leaving no doubt that their team deserved the trophy. Eddie Howe is one of them. Be very, very careful if you want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Iraola, Glasner - all look impressive on paper, but they have not been tested in the final hurdle. 

 

I have been on record here as being an Eddie Howe fan. I believe I praised his achievements on here before he was linked to your job. In 2016, when it was time to replace Rodgers, Michael Edwards had a three-person shortlist - Ancelotti, Klopp, and Howe. Klopp won out due to his experience. When it was time to replace Klopp, Edwards again had three people - Alonso, Slot, and Howe. Howe declined to even consider the position. I am betting next time the LFC job opens up, which may be as early as May, Howe will be on Edwards' shortlist. 

 

Has he made mistakes with signings? I don't know the full details, and you all know more than I do, but it looks like he has. Maybe he does not have the best acumen for players. And based on what you all are saying, he is responsible for your club not performing to expectations this season. Having said that, Howe has that unique ability that top managers like Klopp and Guardiola have: at its peak, when everything is purring, the football is irresistible, untouchable; average players suddenly look five times better. You did not win the cup or compete in the CL by playing plucky underdog football. Your team stepped onto the pitch and competed as if they deserved to be there. Managers who can instill that come along once every decade. 

 

So why risk it? Wouldn't it be better to hire a strong CEO who can handle Howe's and a DOF's clashes and create a path forward, constantly reminding both of them that they need each other to succeed? 

 

If you end up relieving Howe of the manager's job this summer, he is not going to take over a lower-league club. There is a very good chance that he ends up at a club like Liverpool with someone like Michael Edwards pulling the strings from the background. 

 

 

 

Good read, and there is a reason why has taken a long time for fans to turn the corner, mainly because there is always the risk of going backwards. 

 

It's got to the stage for me now where I'm almost as worried about the dangers of compounding the bad season we've had by doubling down on the same mistakes again next season. I don't expect to be competing with Liverpool and City at this stage, but it's galling to see some of the clubs who are above us this season, having spent a fraction of the money. 

[MagPar]

I've nothing but respect and admiration for Eddie Howe but feel the love affair with Newcastle has run it's course. 

 

Eddie and Newcastle have reached the stage of silent car journeys, eating different meals at different times and sleeping in separate bedrooms. 

 

I'm just hoping for an amicable break up rather than a messy divorce. 

[Holmesy]

37 minutes ago, Heron said:

Why do you be so condescending in much of what you write in this thread?

 

Doing something different does not constitute as doing something better necessarily. The whole purpose of doing something different is to influence positive change. Leeds still lost the game. The changes made did not achieve the desired outcome. We could change Howe for Glasner and be relegated next season - would that constitute as good management from the board? Have Spurs managed their club well sacking countless managers and slowly dissipating into the abyss?

 

 

 

Probably because some of the stuff written on here beggars belief, including the post that preceded mine above. I genuinely don't go out to be condescending but I often just sit here shaking my head at some of what I read. 
Farke's changes did exactly what they were designed to - changed the momentum of a game they were being dominated in, and gave them a chance. It doesn't always get you the result but that's football. Anyone denigrating positive in-game management because it didn't work for relegation threatened Leeds against one of the most heavily-spending cartel clubs in the league is surely on the wind up. It's a ridiculous stance, and yet another attempt to defend one of Eddie's obvious and well-documented limitations.

Rafa turned the Champions League final in Instanbul through positive in-game management and it is still hailed as one of the best pieces of football management in the modern era. For me, it's one of the traits that separates the average from the great.

 

It is possible to support Eddie and want him to remain whilst also accepting that his in-game management is poor. But suggesting in-game management is a waste of time because Leeds didn't beat Chelsea is moronic.

I apologise if my tone offends though.

 

 

Edited April 26 by Holmesy

[Mills and Boon]

37 minutes ago, Andy said:

Btw, not to go at rgk too much as I know that post is well-meaning, but I have my doubts that the majority of Liverpool fans would be thrilled if Eddie got Slot's job on the back of the season we've had. Don't think he'd be an attractive enough name for them at all. 

 

I don't think the majority of Newcastle fans were thrilled by Howe's appointment here either. First appointment from the new regime and it was a bit underwhelming to me.

 

It's only once he's in and doing the job you realise what a good, hard working and likable manager he is. When he came in I expected him to stave off relegation, then consolidate our position in the league. I thought to reach the next step and start qualifying for Europe would have taken a bigger name. He proved me wrong and then some

[Mills and Boon]

4 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

Probably because some of the stuff written on here beggars belief, including the post that preceded mine above. I genuinely don't go out to be condescending but I often just sit here shaking my head at some of what I read. 
Farke's changes did exactly what they were designed to - changed the momentum of a game they were being dominated in, and gave them a chance. It doesn't always get you the result but that's football. Anyone denigrating positive in-game management because it didn't work for relegation threatened Leeds against one of the most heavily-spending cartel clubs in the league is surely on the wind up. It's a ridiculous stance, and yet another attempt to defend one of Eddie's obvious and well-documented limitations.

Rafa turned the Champions League final in Instanbul through positive in-game management and it is still hailed as one of the best pieces of football management in the modern era. For me, it's one of the traits that separates the average from the great.

 

It is possible to support Eddie and want him to remain whilst also accepting that his in-game management is poor. But suggesting in-game management is a waste of time because Leeds didn't beat Chelsea is moronic.

I apologise if my tone offends though.

 

 

 

 

Eddie changed it yesterday and didn't get the result. You don't acknowledge that or give him the same props you're giving Farke 

[Holmesy]

Just now, Mills and Boon said:

 

Eddie changed it yesterday and didn't get the result. You don't acknowledge that or give him the same props you're giving Farke 

What did he change beyond just personnel?

[Mills and Boon]

We played 4-5-1 not 4-3-3, and wonderkid Wolter came on in a 10 position behind Wissa later on

[Theregulars]

3 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

Probably because some of the stuff written on here beggars belief, including the post that preceded mine above. I genuinely don't go out to be condescending but I often just sit here shaking my head at some of what I read. 
Farke's changes did exactly what they were designed to - changed the momentum of a game they were being dominated in, and gave them a chance. It doesn't always get you the result but that's football. Anyone denigrating positive in-game management because it didn't work for relegation threatened Leeds against one of the most heavily-spending cartel clubs in the league is surely on the wind up. It's a ridiculous stance, and yet another attempt to defend one of Eddie's obvious and well-documented limitations.

Rafa turned the Champions League final in Instanbul through positive in-game management and it is still hailed as one of the best pieces of football management in the modern era. For me, it's one of the traits that separates the average from the great.

 

It is possible to support Eddie and want him to remain whilst also accepting that his in-game management is poor. But suggesting in-game management is a waste of time because Leeds didn't beat Chelsea is moronic.

I apologise if my tone offends though.

 

 

 

Not really. Let’s run you through it champ:

 

1. you complain that Howe lacks proactivity.

2. You cite that lack of proactivity as a reason for losing games.

3. You make what you intend to be a positive comparison to Farke, who you say is proactive.

4. That proactivity did not change the score of the game.

5. The precise same thing that happened to Leeds (playing well and losing, despite proactivity) happened to Newcastle yesterday (playing well and losing, despite what you say is reactivity). 
6. the two methods achieved the same outcome: defeat despite playing well and a clear “should have scored” moment. 
 

Nobody really disagrees with you that Howe might consider changing approach, but the comparison you use to make him look bad doesn’t work. 
 

Nor is anybody saying Howe has done a good job this season, really. It’s just that you make crap arguments in an irritating way. 
 

In the direct battle of Farke v Howe and proactivity v reactivity, Howe has 4 points from the season’s 2 fixtures and Farke 1. 
 

You state your crap arguments with a real confidence that has no place in reality. 

[Heron]

12 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

Probably because some of the stuff written on here beggars belief, including the post that preceded mine above. I genuinely don't go out to be condescending but I often just sit here shaking my head at some of what I read. 
Farke's changes did exactly what they were designed to - changed the momentum of a game they were being dominated in, and gave them a chance. It doesn't always get you the result but that's football. Anyone denigrating positive in-game management because it didn't work for relegation threatened Leeds against one of the most heavily-spending cartel clubs in the league is surely on the wind up. It's a ridiculous stance, and yet another attempt to defend one of Eddie's obvious and well-documented limitations.

Rafa turned the Champions League final in Instanbul through positive in-game management and it is still hailed as one of the best pieces of football management in the modern era. For me, it's one of the traits that separates the average from the great.

 

It is possible to support Eddie and want him to remain whilst also accepting that his in-game management is poor. But suggesting in-game management is a waste of time because Leeds didn't beat Chelsea is moronic.

I apologise if my tone offends though.

 

 

 

It doesn't offend I just don't see it as necessary given that what you write isn't necessarily fact and those opposing you aren't necessarily stupid/ignorant to facts.

 

I generally hold the view that it's best to make a decision and a wrong decision than to not make a decision at all, as long as it can be justified why you took it. Which appears to be what you're leaning towards. However, it isn't always for the best. I acknowledge that. Spurs are a cartel club, Man United are a cartel club, Chelsea are a cartel club and their decisions to "in-season-manage" have resulted in both Chelsea and Man United missing out on CL in recent seasons and Spurs likely being relegated now. This could be catastrophic for them.

 

On another note - Alan Pardew got us back from 4-0 down versus Arsenal but wouldn't ever be considered one of the greats.

 

I don't think I've seen anyone defend his in game management to be honest. Only folk suggesting that change isn't always for the good - which is absolutely fair and evidenced. Hence why the "tone" of your posts is off the mark - cause it isn't entirely correct and becomes a bit irritating when not considering other points being made.

 

 

Edited April 26 by Heron

[Holmesy]

15 minutes ago, Theregulars said:

Not really. Let’s run you through it champ:

 

1. you complain that Howe lacks proactivity.

2. You cite that lack of proactivity as a reason for losing games.

3. You make what you intend to be a positive comparison to Farke, who you say is proactive.

4. That proactivity did not change the score of the game.

5. The precise same thing that happened to Leeds (playing well and losing, despite proactivity) happened to Newcastle yesterday (playing well and losing, despite what you say is reactivity). 
6. the two methods achieved the same outcome: defeat despite playing well and a clear “should have scored” moment. 
 

Nobody really disagrees with you that Howe might consider changing approach, but the comparison you use to make him look bad doesn’t work. 
 

Nor is anybody saying Howe has done a good job this season, really. It’s just that you make crap arguments in an irritating way. 
 

In the direct battle of Farke v Howe and proactivity v reactivity, Howe has 4 points from the season’s 2 fixtures and Farke 1. 
 

You state your crap arguments with a real confidence that has no place in reality. 

You make it sound like i'm the only one complaining about Eddie's lack of proactivity  I think you'll find about 70% of our fanbase are complaining about it and have been for ages. 

Howe has spent £700m. We should be comfortably beating Leeds every time we play them. I'm not for a second suggesting Farke is a better manager, but he certainly displayed a greater awareness of where things weren't right and a willingness to make changes when needed - something I think all of us would love Eddie to do.

Yesterday was one game, and a game (similar to Leeds v Chelsea) that we probably should be losing - away to the title challengers. I haven't made a single mention of the Arsenal game for precisely that reason. But I'm happy to cite games against Brighton, Brentford, Sunderland, Bournemouth, Crystal Palace, and even Barcelona among others.

If we're really advocating not making changes because they don't get results, based on two instances, fair enough. So if Eddie leaves, we're looking for a flexible, winning manager who favours possession-based football, but good in-game management isn't important. Makes the hunt a little bit easier.

 

 

Edited April 26 by Holmesy

[Holmesy]

14 minutes ago, Heron said:

It doesn't offend I just don't see it as necessary given that what you write isn't necessarily fact and those opposing you aren't necessarily stupid/ignorant to facts.

 

I generally hold the view that it's best to make a decision and a wrong decision than to not make a decision at all, as long as it can be justified why you took it. Which appears to be what you're leaning towards. However, it isn't always for the best. I acknowledge that. Spurs are a cartel club, Man United are a cartel club, Chelsea are a cartel club and their decisions to "in-season-manage" have resulted in both Chelsea and Man United missing out on CL in recent seasons and Spurs likely being relegated now. This could be catastrophic for them.

 

On another note - Alan Pardew got us back from 4-0 down versus Arsenal but wouldn't ever be considered one of the greats.

 

I don't think I've seen anyone defend his in game management to be honest. Only folk suggesting that change isn't always for the good - which is absolutely fair and evidenced. Hence why the "tone" of your posts is off the mark - cause it isn't entirely correct and becomes a bit irritating when not considering other points being made.

 

 

 

That's exactly what i'm leaning towards. At least we could see he's trying to reverse the rut. 

 

[Heron]

12 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

That's exactly what i'm leaning towards. At least we could see he's trying to reverse the rut. 

 

I just don't think Howe is the man for widescale change - rightly or wrongly. For me when you look at the whole Longstaff and Tonali scenario as an example, he slightly tinkered with that and slowly fed Tonali in. He's done that with other players too and has had success in doing so. I think he's more likely to make slight adjustments to his generally successful formula than he is to go with something entirely different. That may be his ultimate downfall - we shall see, but I think his previous seasons are sufficient evidence as to why he may opt to continue taking that same approach.

 

Whether his fault or not, last summer has forced him to make a noticeable adjustment in my opinion and that hasn't been taken or taken well enough. So I am somewhat in agreement with you there. I just don't feel he's had ample opportunity to do that until recently. I personally feel we should have stuck with Woltemade up top too.

 

I don't know (as I don't stalk you ) but I kinda feel like Howe is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't at present amongst my own friendship group and online. Kinda feels like the same folk slating Howe for not using Woltemade are the same guys slating Woltemade for being shite. Speculative from my side, admittedly. It's just the feeling I have.

 

I actually included in a reaponse letter to Howe last year that I felt 3 5 2 (in a similar vein to Inter) would really suit Newcastle - so despite my support of Eddie I'm not that blinkered that I don't see some of the flaws to his ways. I just also see the evidence of his tenure prior to this season and choose to bank on the class overall rather than the form we're seeing.

 

Each to their own. The proof will be in the pudding as they say.

 

 

Edited April 26 by Heron

[Mattoon]

Its all getting a bit aggy which is ridiculous really, I know it can be frustrating when someone doesn't see the situation from the same angle as you do but ultimately we all just want what is best for NUFC we just don't agree with what that is.

 

Both sides have legitimate and well thought out reasons and evidence to support their stance and both are just as right or wrong as each other. No one could truly know what is for the best without the benefit of hindsight, whether Howe stays and succeeds or is spent or if he goes and we take off under another manager or continue to freefall, none of it is guaranteed.

 

No one is stupid, ignorant or ill informed because they don't agree with you.