Eddie Howe

[Ben]

Just my opinion but if Howe stays then Woltemade has to go, he can't be shoehorned into the team, I'm looking forward to how he plays in the World cup this year.

[The Prophet]

A good article about Slot with a few relevant salient points.

[Terrymac1966]

Club needs freshening up. Passing shit Pressing shit Crossing and dead ball shit. Defending shit Goalkeeping shit.

Subs used like confetti admission that starting line up was wrong.

One good game all season Everton away and he immediately changed the team inexplicably.

Sorry but firmly in the time-up camp now....love you Eddie but that does not sway my opinion

[Chicken Dancer]

2 hours ago, The Prophet said:

A good article about Slot with a few relevant salient points.

It’s mad that we’re almost at the same crossroads as them. Both managers have credit in the bank after impressive 24/25 seasons but both managers now split the opinion of their respective fanbases 12 months later after a disappointing 25/26. Both clubs spent a lot of money last summer on players that haven’t worked so far either. 
 

I wouldn’t put money on either being here this time in a year. 

 

 

Edited May 27 by Chicken Dancer

[Carlito]

10 hours ago, Geordie Ahmed said:

 

Where have you plucked this 5 years figure from?

 

Literally explained why it's set us back that far. We can't spend without selling thanks to wasting so much money on players he wouldn't even give a consistent run in the team (this would actually be the one difference but that's on Howe), we have a manager that has shown no signs of turning it around because he's too stubborn, we have players wanting out and clearly not playing for the manager and defensively we are a total mess. We ended this season in relegation form. Ironically we got battered by West Ham at their worst earlier this season as well and were lucky to only concede 3 that day.

 

4 hours ago, Wallsendmag said:

 

You can't say that like. Ludicrous trying to put a timescale on things like that. We went from relegation certainties to qualifying for the CL from 1 season to the next. Mackems were in Division 3 five years ago, now they've just qualified for Europa League. Things can turn around in a very short space of time. We can't afford to make any mistakes this summer though.

 

We've gone full-circle under Howe. Do you really think giving him more money to spend on players he wants will turn things around if we keep playing the exact same way? Let's say even if we do perform well next season and somehow get back into Europe after selling a couple of our best players, then what? We'll be right back where we are now the season after next because we'll continue to play the same way, end up with too many injuries and see aging players started when their form doesn't justify it.

 

 

Edited May 27 by Carlito

[timeEd32]

7 minutes ago, Chicken Dancer said:

It’s mad that we’re almost at the same crossroads as them. Both managers have credit in the bank after impressive 24/25 seasons but both managers now split the opinion of their respective fanbases 12 months later after a disappointing 25/26. Both clubs spent a lot of money last summer on players that haven’t worked so far either. 
 

I wouldn’t put money on either being here this time in a year. 

 

 

 

Except one inherited a top team and the other is primarily responsible for multiple years of success. 

[Whitley mag]

11 minutes ago, Chicken Dancer said:

It’s mad that we’re almost at the same crossroads as them. Both managers have credit in the bank after impressive 24/25 seasons but both managers now split the opinion of their respective fanbases 12 months later after a disappointing 25/26. Both clubs spent a lot of money last summer on players that haven’t worked so far either. 
 

I wouldn’t put money on either being here this time in a year. 

 

 

 

I’d take the players they signed over ours like.

[Robster]

14 minutes ago, Chicken Dancer said:

It’s mad that we’re almost at the same crossroads as them. Both managers have credit in the bank after impressive 24/25 seasons but both managers now split the opinion of their respective fanbases 12 months later after a disappointing 25/26. Both clubs spent a lot of money last summer on players that haven’t worked so far either. 
 

I wouldn’t put money on either being here this time in a year. 

 

 

 

Personally, I am not sure Slot has much credit in the bank at all.

I think they won the title in spite of him, not because of him.

[Kid Icarus]

Yeah I thought Liverpool were godawful for a title winning team last season and said so at the time. Similar to Arsenal they won it with a low points total while there was a vacuum at the top.

 

I know it's trite, but I do also think you can't underestimate how much these transition seasons have an affect on clubs though, so I understand why Liverpool are looking long-term and standing firm.

[DC Magpie]

4 hours ago, Ben said:

Just my opinion but if Howe stays then Woltemade has to go, he can't be shoehorned into the team, I'm looking forward to how he plays in the World cup this year.

 

I agree, assuming Eddie is going to continue with the 4-3-3 (which I suspect he will). The agonizing thing for me is that we saw such a glimpse of what might be possible in a new formation with a lineup that many of us have been screaming to see all season (only to have him revert to form with Willock and Murphy the next week). That 4-2-3-1 has to be the approach going forward, but I don't think it will be. And if it's the same old tired 4-3-3 again, then Nick has no natural home and we should get what we can for him and move on - best for all involved (especially him I suspect).

 

But I don't expect much from Nick in the WC tbh. His form for us was so bad with all the positional experimenting he must have fallen to at least second, perhaps third choice for Germany. 

 

But it goes deeper than that. Bruno literally quit against Fulham, Gordon and perhaps Tonali are gone. Barnes has to be asking himself what he's done to constantly be benched in favor of do-nothings. Ramsey must also feel he has been benched for Eddie's favorites too often this year. Lewis too at the end - might have cost him a WC spot to boot. 

 

But if we alienate and/or lose all our gifted players and Eddie is out at Christmas, where are we then? I think we need to bite the bullet and just address the managerial situation now. A manager who can't (or won't) adapt his tactics to play to the strengths of his best (not his favorite) players will only take you so far. I suspect we've seen the extent of how far that is. Not discounting what he's accomplished here, but I don't see how it gets any better.

[Ben]

11 minutes ago, DC Magpie said:

 

I agree, assuming Eddie is going to continue with the 4-3-3 (which I suspect he will). The agonizing thing for me is that we saw such a glimpse of what might be possible in a new formation with a lineup that many of us have been screaming to see all season (only to have him revert to form with Willock and Murphy the next week). That 4-2-3-1 has to be the approach going forward, but I don't think it will be. And if it's the same old tired 4-3-3 again, then Nick has no natural home and we should get what we can for him and move on - best for all involved (especially him I suspect).

 

But I don't expect much from Nick in the WC tbh. His form for us was so bad with all the positional experimenting he must have fallen to at least second, perhaps third choice for Germany. 

 

But it goes deeper than that. Bruno literally quit against Fulham, Gordon and perhaps Tonali are gone. Barnes has to be asking himself what he's done to constantly be benched in favor of do-nothings. Ramsey must also feel he has been benched for Eddie's favorites too often this year. Lewis too at the end - might have cost him a WC spot to boot. 

 

But if we alienate and/or lose all our gifted players and Eddie is out at Christmas, where are we then? I think we need to bite the bullet and just address the managerial situation now. A manager who can't (or won't) adapt his tactics to play to the strengths of his best (not his favorite) players will only take you so far. I suspect we've seen the extent of how far that is. Not discounting what he's accomplished here, but I don't see how it gets any better.

 

Im still Howe in, however arguments like this does make me question my support for him 

[dcmk]

23 minutes ago, DC Magpie said:

 

I agree, assuming Eddie is going to continue with the 4-3-3 (which I suspect he will). The agonizing thing for me is that we saw such a glimpse of what might be possible in a new formation with a lineup that many of us have been screaming to see all season (only to have him revert to form with Willock and Murphy the next week). That 4-2-3-1 has to be the approach going forward, but I don't think it will be. And if it's the same old tired 4-3-3 again, then Nick has no natural home and we should get what we can for him and move on - best for all involved (especially him I suspect).

 

But I don't expect much from Nick in the WC tbh. His form for us was so bad with all the positional experimenting he must have fallen to at least second, perhaps third choice for Germany. 

 

But it goes deeper than that. Bruno literally quit against Fulham, Gordon and perhaps Tonali are gone. Barnes has to be asking himself what he's done to constantly be benched in favor of do-nothings. Ramsey must also feel he has been benched for Eddie's favorites too often this year. Lewis too at the end - might have cost him a WC spot to boot. 

 

But if we alienate and/or lose all our gifted players and Eddie is out at Christmas, where are we then? I think we need to bite the bullet and just address the managerial situation now. A manager who can't (or won't) adapt his tactics to play to the strengths of his best (not his favorite) players will only take you so far. I suspect we've seen the extent of how far that is. Not discounting what he's accomplished here, but I don't see how it gets any better.

I agree with some of this.

 

But to say Howe just plays his favourites over better players is a bit disingenuous.  He plays players that he trusts ultimately.

 

There has been many times when he's said he didn't expect that performance level from his team, or didn't see that performance coming, especially in times where we have let leads turn into poor defeats which suggests he feels the players let him down.  So to go back to trusted players, especially strong leadership characters, like Dan Burn makes some sense.  Tuchel can even see Burns value, on and off the pitch.

 

Suggests Howe hasn't totally lost the plot.

 

I also don't think Fulham game can be used to give us any indication of anything.  Players played it like a friendly so they can arrive at the World Cup healthy.  Jarring for us supporters but can kind of understand it.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 27 by dcmk

[Terrymac1966]

Our ball turnover to the opposition is at a premium now. The Entertainers were just that because thet rarely missed a pass and were pacey and direct.

This is a million miles away.

[Carlito]

7 minutes ago, dcmk said:

I agree with some of this.

 

But to say Howe just plays his favourites over better players is a bit disingenuous.  He plays players that he trusts ultimately.

 

There has been many times when he's said he didn't expect that performance level from his team, or didn't see that performance coming, especially in times where we have let leads turn into poor defeats which suggests he feels the players let him down.  So to go back to trusted players, especially strong leadership characters, like Dan Burn makes some sense.  Tuchel can even see Burns value, on and off the pitch.

 

Suggests Howe hasn't totally lost the plot.

 

I also don't think Fulham game can be used to give us any indication of anything.  Players played it like a friendly so they can arrive at the World Cup healthy.  Jarring for us supporters but can kind of understand it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Considering the players he trusts the most are the main ones who have under-performed the most this season, his judgement has been poor.

The thirties club have all been extremely poor and should be moved on this summer. Murphy should have gone last summer while his stock was at its highest. Pope needs to go. Burn is the only one that we might still get anything out of next season as a backup but even then he too often gets caught out too high up the pitch. He should not be starting at left back over Hall given how our team is set up to play.

[Cronky]

1 hour ago, DC Magpie said:

 

I agree, assuming Eddie is going to continue with the 4-3-3 (which I suspect he will). The agonizing thing for me is that we saw such a glimpse of what might be possible in a new formation with a lineup that many of us have been screaming to see all season (only to have him revert to form with Willock and Murphy the next week). That 4-2-3-1 has to be the approach going forward, but I don't think it will be. And if it's the same old tired 4-3-3 again, then Nick has no natural home and we should get what we can for him and move on - best for all involved (especially him I suspect).

 

But I don't expect much from Nick in the WC tbh. His form for us was so bad with all the positional experimenting he must have fallen to at least second, perhaps third choice for Germany. 

 

But it goes deeper than that. Bruno literally quit against Fulham, Gordon and perhaps Tonali are gone. Barnes has to be asking himself what he's done to constantly be benched in favor of do-nothings. Ramsey must also feel he has been benched for Eddie's favorites too often this year. Lewis too at the end - might have cost him a WC spot to boot. 

 

But if we alienate and/or lose all our gifted players and Eddie is out at Christmas, where are we then? I think we need to bite the bullet and just address the managerial situation now. A manager who can't (or won't) adapt his tactics to play to the strengths of his best (not his favorite) players will only take you so far. I suspect we've seen the extent of how far that is. Not discounting what he's accomplished here, but I don't see how it gets any better.

 

For all your talk about formations and tactics in this and your previous post, you seem to be ignoring the most significant factor in our poor form - namely the relentless fixture demands, and the difficulty of overcoming some much improved Premiership teams after a midweek game.

 

Of the teams playing in Europe, ourselves, Spurs, Palace, Forest, Chelsea and Liverpool clearly underperformed in the league - some badly so. Arsenal and Man City were okay, but their squads consisted of two first teams rather than a first team and a back-up. You may see Villa as the exception, but the Europa League is now a cakewalk for the PL sides. It is more than two years since any English team was knocked out of it by a Continental side. Forest would probably have won it this time round if they hadn't met Villa.

 

The issue of conceding late goals and throwing away leads has been discussed on here. For me, the explanation is simple - the players were knackered.

[DC Magpie]

15 minutes ago, Cronky said:

 

For all your talk about formations and tactics in this and your previous post, you seem to be ignoring the most significant factor in our poor form - namely the relentless fixture demands, and the difficulty of overcoming some much improved Premiership teams after a midweek game.

 

Of the teams playing in Europe, ourselves, Spurs, Palace, Forest, Chelsea and Liverpool clearly underperformed in the league - some badly so. Arsenal and Man City were okay, but their squads consisted of two first teams rather than a first team and a back-up. You may see Villa as the exception, but the Europa League is now a cakewalk for the PL sides. It is more than two years since any English team was knocked out of it by a Continental side. Forest would probably have won it this time round if they hadn't met Villa.

 

The issue of conceding late goals and throwing away leads has been discussed on here. For me, the explanation is simple - the players were knackered.

 

Cheers. That's fair. I concede that the team is not deep enough to endure the rigors of a 58 game season. But you're also kinda proving my point. With the demands of a 58 game schedule on the visible horizon, why on earth would you play exclusively a high press where all our players do is run around in circles at full speed? It's not as though Eddie didn't know we were in Europe this year. 

 

I've said before, his style may be better suited for a 38 game schedule, but when you lack depth as we do (never mind our age) the players don't hold up over time in that system under an expanded schedule. And Eddie's repetitive team selection (no matter the game or competition) added to the fatigue and injuries. The second tie of Qarabag is the most egregious example of this, but he did it all year.

 

I don't think anyone would argue we do much better in the high press when we have fewer games - hence the up again, down again nature of our recent final results. But that also makes me think Eddie sticks with the 4-3-3, and supports the point I was trying to make, which is it's better to move on from Nick now. He has no position.

 

I'd argue our habit of conceding late isn't something that came only late in the season due to fatigue, but I'd have to go back and look.

 

[Holmesy]

4 minutes ago, Cronky said:

 

For all your talk about formations and tactics in this and your previous post, you seem to be ignoring the most significant factor in our poor form - namely the relentless fixture demands, and the difficulty of overcoming some much improved Premiership teams after a midweek game.

 

Of the teams playing in Europe, ourselves, Spurs, Palace, Forest, Chelsea and Liverpool clearly underperformed in the league - some badly so. Arsenal and Man City were okay, but their squads consisted of two first teams rather than a first team and a back-up. You may see Villa as the exception, but the Europa League is now a cakewalk for the PL sides. It is more than two years since any English team was knocked out of it by a Continental side. Forest would probably have won it this time round if they hadn't met Villa.

 

The issue of conceding late goals and throwing away leads has been discussed on here. For me, the explanation is simple - the players were knackered.

The issue of conceding late goals was a pattern, and a pattern that the manager couldn't or wouldn't reverse. If that's due to players being tired, play a brand of football that conserves their energy ie. keep the fucking ball.
There's a reason the buck stops with the manager in top flight football - he is paid a fortune to find solutions to problems. Eddie didn't, and I suspect part of the reason is because for 4 seasons he has ingrained one way of playing. 

If we have players who are incapable of keeping the ball so we can't conserve energy, again who does that come down to?

I understand the Eddie sycophants will always want to find reasons why it wasn't his fault but it just was, whichever way you come at it. His job is to mould the squad we have into an effective unit, regardless of fixture pile-up (the privilege we earned for getting into Europe), injuries etc. There's also plenty of comments on here celebrating Eddie when we do well but blaming the players if we do badly - on what planet does that make sense?

The buck stops with the manager and this season he did a shit job for whatever reason. Let's just hope he does a better job next season.

 

[Chicken Dancer]

2 hours ago, timeEd32 said:

Except one inherited a top team and the other is primarily responsible for multiple years of success. 

Christ I wasn’t having a pop at Howe man  

 

Just pointing out the feeling of the fanbases are pretty similar right now. 

[timeEd32]

18 minutes ago, Chicken Dancer said:

Christ I wasn’t having a pop at Howe man  

 

Just pointing out the feeling of the fanbases are pretty similar right now. 

 

I just assume everyone is having a pop at Eddie now.

[TRC]

7 hours ago, Ben said:

Just my opinion but if Howe stays then Woltemade has to go, he can't be shoehorned into the team, I'm looking forward to how he plays in the World cup this year.

Woltemade is the only part of the World Cup I’m interested in 

[Robster]

1 hour ago, TRC said:

Woltemade is the only part of the World Cup I’m interested in 

and Bruno for me.

[Wallsendmag]

5 hours ago, Carlito said:

 

Literally explained why it's set us back that far. We can't spend without selling thanks to wasting so much money on players he wouldn't even give a consistent run in the team (this would actually be the one difference but that's on Howe), we have a manager that has shown no signs of turning it around because he's too stubborn, we have players wanting out and clearly not playing for the manager and defensively we are a total mess. We ended this season in relegation form. Ironically we got battered by West Ham at their worst earlier this season as well and were lucky to only concede 3 that day.

 

 

We've gone full-circle under Howe. Do you really think giving him more money to spend on players he wants will turn things around if we keep playing the exact same way? Let's say even if we do perform well next season and somehow get back into Europe after selling a couple of our best players, then what? We'll be right back where we are now the season after next because we'll continue to play the same way, end up with too many injuries and see aging players started when their form doesn't justify it.

 

 

 

 

I didn't say I disagreed with you. What I'm saying is that you can't put a timescale on anything, ie we've gone back 5 years, cos that's simply not true.

[Cronky]

3 hours ago, DC Magpie said:

 

Cheers. That's fair. I concede that the team is not deep enough to endure the rigors of a 58 game season. But you're also kinda proving my point. With the demands of a 58 game schedule on the visible horizon, why on earth would you play exclusively a high press where all our players do is run around in circles at full speed? It's not as though Eddie didn't know we were in Europe this year. 

 

I've said before, his style may be better suited for a 38 game schedule, but when you lack depth as we do (never mind our age) the players don't hold up over time in that system under an expanded schedule. And Eddie's repetitive team selection (no matter the game or competition) added to the fatigue and injuries. The second tie of Qarabag is the most egregious example of this, but he did it all year.

 

I don't think anyone would argue we do much better in the high press when we have fewer games - hence the up again, down again nature of our recent final results. But that also makes me think Eddie sticks with the 4-3-3, and supports the point I was trying to make, which is it's better to move on from Nick now. He has no position.

 

I'd argue our habit of conceding late isn't something that came only late in the season due to fatigue, but I'd have to go back and look.

 

 

3 hours ago, Holmesy said:

The issue of conceding late goals was a pattern, and a pattern that the manager couldn't or wouldn't reverse. If that's due to players being tired, play a brand of football that conserves their energy ie. keep the fucking ball.
There's a reason the buck stops with the manager in top flight football - he is paid a fortune to find solutions to problems. Eddie didn't, and I suspect part of the reason is because for 4 seasons he has ingrained one way of playing. 

If we have players who are incapable of keeping the ball so we can't conserve energy, again who does that come down to?

I understand the Eddie sycophants will always want to find reasons why it wasn't his fault but it just was, whichever way you come at it. His job is to mould the squad we have into an effective unit, regardless of fixture pile-up (the privilege we earned for getting into Europe), injuries etc. There's also plenty of comments on here celebrating Eddie when we do well but blaming the players if we do badly - on what planet does that make sense?

The buck stops with the manager and this season he did a shit job for whatever reason. Let's just hope he does a better job next season.

 

 

We don't have the players to play a possession-based style. Is it realistic, when we've won our first major trophy for 70 years and we've had two CL campaigns by playing a certain way, to have another group of players at at the ready who can effectively play an alternative style? Get real.

[Wallsendmag]

This 58 game season excuse is another load of bollocks when we were playing poorly from August. (We won 1 of our first 6 games, a fortune 1-0 win v Wolves against). Fact is we never got going. Most of the excuses being peddled are quite easily pulled apart.

[Milburn]

33 minutes ago, Wallsendmag said:

This 58 game season excuse is another load of bollocks when we were playing poorly from August. (We won 1 of our first 6 games, a fortune 1-0 win v Wolves against). Fact is we never got going. Most of the excuses being peddled are quite easily pulled apart.

Aston Villa played 56 games, won the Europa League and still finished in the Champions League places.

 

At some point the excuses stop sounding convincing and start sounding like deflection.