Eddie Howe

[Rod]

1 minute ago, Conjo said:

I've just realised ....... it's school holidays isn't it?

[Conjo]

2 minutes ago, Rod said:

I've just realised ....... it's school holidays isn't it?

 

It is in west coast in Norway at least. Don't know about you guys.

[Holmesy]

2 hours ago, Shadow Puppets said:

I maintain it is ALL down to the midfield not functioning properly at all without the legs of Joelinton and Willock.

You're probably spot on with that, but isn't it the manager's job to find a way around it? For me, some of the criticism of Eddie is way over the top, but some of it is warranted.

 

One of the frustrating narratives is that he can't do anything about it when it's literally his job to do something about it. Who is it setting the midfield up to push so far forward? Who is it deciding not to play one of the midfielders deeper? Who is it not experimenting with different formations, shapes and systems to negate our weaknesses? Who persisted with probably the slowest outfield player in the PL game after game, when he was getting torn to shreds after the pedestrian midfield was bypassed?

 

You can't say it's down to the midfield and absolve Eddie of blame, when he sets up the midfield. It's like we're stuck on one setting and people are defending Eddie by saying we don't have the right players to play that setting, so what do you expect?! Honestly, I expect us to be able to change setting. 

 

 

Edited February 27 by Holmesy

[KaKa]

3 minutes ago, Rod said:

"He is probably a better manager than Bruce"!  Words fail me.

 

I'm completely floored man ... I mean, how can anyone see things this way. What is the point of even following the sport? This is just sad.

[Erikse]

58 minutes ago, KaKa said:

 

Very simplistic way of looking at the quality of players.

 

Luton and Bournemouth have a number of dynamic attackers with pace and power.

 

Our defence is currently being exposed due to the current midfield which lacks dynamism and recovery speed.

 

This allowed both Luton and Bournemouth to capitalise against our defence which is not the quickest, and at the same time the goalkeeper is not good coming off his line as a sweeper, like Pope is.

 

I'm sure you could make an argument for every team in the league to have strengths against us. Does Luton and Bournemouth not have weaknesses of their own? Weaknesses is something that you try to compensate for tactically. For example, our defence was struggling with pace against Luton while Livra was on the bench.

 

Now that the fatiguer factor is gone, we have to find new excuses it seems.

 

 

Edited February 27 by Erikse

[Mills and Boon]

11 minutes ago, greenhill said:

I don't suggest Howe is a bad manager nor we should sack him now, he is probably a much better manager than Bruce but our current results is worse than that under Bruce is also a fact. I hope and I still have some faith that he could turn things around. But if that doesn't happen before the end of this season, we have to reflect why we were that bad. We still have 12 more league games to play, if our performance and results remain that bad over 24 games it's hard to argue it's over 'a curated set of fixtures'.

 

Well when you've decided to stop at 12 games it is curated. Why not include the whole season? Or Howe's full record as you did for Bruce?

 

Because it then becomes obvious that Howe is better and you don't want to say that for some reason.

 

What's the average points per game of Bruce's last 12 games in charge out of interest?

[KaKa]

12 minutes ago, Erikse said:

 

I'm sure you could make an argument for every team in the league to have strengths against us. Does Luton and Bournemouth not have weaknesses of their own? Weaknesses is something that you try to compensate for tactically. For example, our defence was struggling with pace against Luton while Livra was on the bench.

 

Now that the fatiguer factor is gone, we have to find new excuses it seems.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, it's all just excuses. Fine. 

[The Prophet]

21 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

You're probably spot on with that, but isn't it the manager's job to find a way around it? For me, some of the criticism of Eddie is way over the top, but some of it is warranted.

 

One of the frustrating narratives is that he can't do anything about it when it's literally his job to do something about it. Who is it setting the midfield up to push so far forward? Who is it deciding not to play one of the midfielders deeper? Who is it not experimenting with different formations, shapes and systems to negate our weaknesses? Who persisted with probably the slowest outfield player in the PL game after game, when he was getting torn to shreds?

 

You can't say it's down to the midfield and absolve Eddie of blame, when he sets up the midfield. It's like we're stuck on one setting and people are defending Eddie by saying we don't have the right players to play that setting, so what do you expect?! Honestly, I expect us to be able to change setting. 

 

It's not like he hasn't tried. We've had...

 

Bruno deeper.

 

Miley and Longstaff deeper.

 

Miley right, Longstaff left.

 

Longstaff left, Miley right.

 

Man for man pressing.

 

Zonal pressing.

 

Sure, it's his job to find the answer and he hasn't done so yet, but we've tried variations of the flat midfield three. Perhaps he should have implemented a more radical change, but he has been shuffling it about.

 

My personal view is we could benefit from a more natural defensive minded midfielder. They don't have to be a stopper, but an option who has that discipline to sit in the gap between the midfield and back four.

 

 

Edited February 27 by The Prophet

[greenhill]

9 minutes ago, Mills and Boon said:

 

Well when you've decided to stop at 12 games it is curated. Why not include the whole season? Or Howe's full record as you did for Bruce?

 

Because it then becomes obvious that Howe is better and you don't want to say that for some reason.

 

What's the average points per game of Bruce's last 12 games in charge out of interest?

Because we make decisions based on what he is doing now, not his CV.

 

Since that Everton game we had been poor for some time, and things are not fixed yet.

 

And FYI, Bruce got 12 points from his last 12 league games in charge.

[KaKa]

22 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

You're probably spot on with that, but isn't it the manager's job to find a way around it? For me, some of the criticism of Eddie is way over the top, but some of it is warranted.

 

One of the frustrating narratives is that he can't do anything about it when it's literally his job to do something about it. Who is it setting the midfield up to push so far forward? Who is it deciding not to play one of the midfielders deeper? Who is it not experimenting with different formations, shapes and systems to negate our weaknesses? Who persisted with probably the slowest outfield player in the PL game after game, when he was getting torn to shreds after the pedestrian midfield was bypassed?

 

You can't say it's down to the midfield and absolve Eddie of blame, when he sets up the midfield. It's like we're stuck on one setting and people are defending Eddie by saying we don't have the right players to play that setting, so what do you expect?! Honestly, I expect us to be able to change setting. 

 

 

 

 

It all sounds so simple.

 

So when Mourinho was stinking at Spurs why didn't he just change setting? 

 

When Conte was stinking at Spurs why couldn't he just change setting?

 

These are the elite managers we should be after right? Why couldn't they both just figure it out, even without an injury crisis?

 

 

[Mills and Boon]

6 minutes ago, greenhill said:

Because we make decisions based on what he is doing now, not his CV.

 

Since that Everton game we had been poor for some time, and things are not fixed yet.

 

And FYI, Bruce got 12 points from his last 12 league games in charge.

Maybe we were too hasty

[Interpolic]

7 minutes ago, greenhill said:

Because we make decisions based on what he is doing now, not his CV.

 

Since that Everton game we had been poor for some time, and things are not fixed yet.

 

And FYI, Bruce got 12 points from his last 12 league games in charge.

 

 

Liverpool had spells like this last season, with nowhere near the issues we've had. Should they have sacked Klopp off? 

[greenhill]

Just now, Interpolic said:

 

 

Liverpool had spells like this last season, with nowhere near the issues we've had. Should they have sacked Klopp off? 

I agree with you and that's my point. I think we should keep our faith on Howe at least for the moment, but we need to be rational at the end of the season. If we are poor for 24 games not 12 then questions have to be raised.

[KaKa]

2 minutes ago, Interpolic said:

 

 

Liverpool had spells like this last season, with nowhere near the issues we've had. Should they have sacked Klopp off? 

 

How quickly everyone forgets man. It's just sad really.

 

Making out even the top managers don't have ropey moments.

 

 

[Holmesy]

19 minutes ago, KaKa said:

 

It all sounds so simple.

 

So when Mourinho was stinking at Spurs why didn't he just change setting? 

 

When Conte was stinking at Spurs why couldn't he just change setting?

 

These are the elite managers we should be after right? Why couldn't they both just figure it out, even without an injury crisis?

 

 

Perhaps they couldn't, and that ultimately led to their demises. Maybe they reached the limit of what they were capable of with the groups of players they had.

Maybe the same is true of Eddie. Who knows?!  Maybe he is literally a one setting manager.

 

What you've described in your post is the various different ways we've tried to implement setting 1. Even when we were down to bare bones, we still had the pace and the players available to play an effective counter-attacking style, which we didn't do even once. Instead, we further rinsed the players we had trying to play high intensity front foot for 90 minutes.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 27 by Holmesy

[LiquidAK]

27 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

It's not like he hasn't tried. We've had...

 

Bruno deeper.

 

Miley and Longstaff deeper.

 

Miley right, Longstaff left.

 

Longstaff left, Miley right.

 

Man for man pressing.

 

Zonal pressing.

 

Sure, it's his job to find the answer and he hasn't done so yet, but we've tried variations of the flat midfield three. Perhaps he should have implemented a more radical change, but he has been shuffling it about.

 

My personal view is we could benefit from a more natural defensive minded midfielder. They don't have to be a stopper, but an option who has that discipline to sit in the gap between the midfield and back four.

 

 

 

No plan B though m8.

[KaKa]

5 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

Perhaps they couldn't, and that ultimately led to their demises. Maybe they reached the limit of what they were capable of with the groups of players they had.

Maybe the same is true of Eddie. Who knows?!  Maybe he is literally a one setting manager.

 

What you've described in your post is the various different ways we've tried to implement setting 1. Even when we were down to bare bones, we still had the pace and the players available to play an effective counter-attacking style, which we didn't do even once. Instead, we further rinsed the players we had trying to play high intensity front foot for 90 minutes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The problem is though we don't know the extent to which these alternative approaches have been explored in training, and whether the current players available were deemed to be better off persisting with the current approach, with the more minor tweaks Howe has tried here and there.

 

There is no certainty that a change in formation, or a more defensive and counter attacking approach suddenly cures all ills.

 

I think some of us just have more faith in the manager and his decision making and are fine to let him work through this tough period, while others seemingly see it as evidence he is not up to the task, which in my opinion is incredibly shortsighted.

[Erikse]

26 minutes ago, KaKa said:

 

It all sounds so simple.

 

So when Mourinho was stinking at Spurs why didn't he just change setting? 

 

When Conte was stinking at Spurs why couldn't he just change setting?

 

These are the elite managers we should be after right? Why couldn't they both just figure it out, even without an injury crisis?

 

 

 

It all sounds so simple.

When Bruce was stinking at Newcastle why didn't he just change setting?

When Pardew was stinking at Newcastle why didn't he just change setting?

When Kinnear was stinking at Newcastle why didn't he just change setting?

 

Why do we criticise managers ever? Being a manager is not easy!

 

By the way I wouldn't want Mourinho near our club. He's way past his prime.

[buzza]

I think Eddie has probably had one his hardest seasons:

Injuries

Suspensions (including bruno on tenderhooks for last 4-5 games)

Lots of players falling out of form (Tripps/Burn/Botman/Wilson/bruno)...

 

If the players aren´t performing I don¨t think system changes will help much. Puts a bit more perspective into it.

[KaKa]

9 minutes ago, Erikse said:

 

It all sounds so simple.

When Bruce was stinking at Newcastle why didn't he just change setting?

When Pardew was stinking at Newcastle why didn't he just change setting?

When Kinnear was stinking at Newcastle why didn't he just change setting?

 

Why do we criticise managers ever? Being a manager is not easy!

 

By the way I wouldn't want Mourinho near our club. He's way past his prime.

 

Ultimately every fan base complains about their manager's decision making and team selections.

 

And so ultimately, what is the manager's ethos, how do they handle themselves, what are their signings like, how do the players respond to them, are they ultimately worth getting behind?

 

I just don't understand how anyone is uncertain on Howe already, and making out he's not up to it, due to his first tough period at the club under difficult circumstances. It is baffling.

 

 

Edited February 27 by KaKa

[madras]

Some might think we are lucky not to be dragged into a relegation battle even before the injuries etc.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

1 minute ago, KaKa said:

 

Ultimately every fan base complains about managers decision making and team selections.

 

And so ultimately, what is the manager's ethos, how do they handle themselves, what are their signings like, how do the players respond to them, are they ultimately worth getting behind?

 

I just don't understand how anyone is uncertain on Howe already, and making out he's not up to it, due to his first tough period at the club under difficult circumstances. It is baffling.

I don’t see the point in posting that much about Howe these days, or at least I try not to. 
 

The ultimate question is whether we should be fully behind him, and the answer is of course we should. 

[Holmesy]

31 minutes ago, KaKa said:

 

The problem is though we don't know the extent to which these alternative approaches have been explored in training, and whether the current players available were deemed to be better off persisting with the current approach, with the more minor tweaks Howe has tried here and there.

 

There is no certainty that a change in formation, or a more defensive and counter attacking approach suddenly cures all ills.

 

I think some of us just have more faith in the manager and his decision making and are fine to let him work through this tough period, while others seemingly see it as evidence he is not up to the task, which in my opinion is incredibly shortsighted.

You could be right. I suppose what this conversation confirms is that there's a definite loss of confidence in Eddie from me, given some of the things we've witnessed this season. I remember under Rafa, I just trusted absolutely in everything he did because he consistently made silk purses out of piles of shit and seemed to have a tactical answer for everything. Last season I felt the same about Eddie, but that confidence has definitely eroded a bit. Hopefully it comes back next season.

[80]

Hypothetical question - if Eddie switches us to a 5-3-2 or a 5-4-1 system and we suddenly go on one of his winning runs for a couple of months putting us right in the mix for 6th, does this make him a genius or a doofus for not looking at doing it earlier?

 

I feel like there are some who would take it as proof he's the man for us even though there have been people proposing it on here for nearly 3 months due to our injury problems. I think that's what some people take issue with - positive confirmation bias.

 

Yes, there are absolutely people on here who get some sort of psycho-sexual stimulation from the idea we'll have to sack him, but there are also a few for whom it's eternally sunshine and lollipops. That thanks to Eddie we live in the best of all possible world, and this season is as good as it ever could have been once you factor in gambling bans and freak injuries. That's the bit I don't think is true.

 

It certainly doesn't mean I want him sacked or am overreacting. But it's ridiculous to catch a lot of shit for slagging off the Fulham performance just because our opponents had Jacob Murphy's finishing instincts, when it turned out to be near enough the exact same disorderly performance we gave against Forest, Luton and Bournemouth. We've never looked so uncoordinated and naive as we have in the past month, even in December when we had near enough the same players, far more fatigue and far less training time. That's what's concerning and makes me think "we could probably be doing something better here".

[Bimpy474]

You don't bin a manager as soon as he and his team go through a bad spell. Imo Eddie has earnt the right to pick results back up.

 

And while those results and performances in the main have been disappointing (at home mostly), I think we've only lost to Man City and Arsenal in the last eight games, so it's not a collapse in form.