Eddie Howe

[The Prophet]

10 minutes ago, Orphanage said:

We were playing better when were busier ( results apart - take into consideration who we were playing ) schedules lightened and although as you point out results have gotten a bit better we are playing shite and against worse opposition 

 

We've recently played three of the top five.

[Displayname]

Results are better, but the only game with a good performance was Villa. And maybe Sunderland, though they just bended over really.

 

[Jagten]

1 hour ago, Hanshithispantz said:

Before the 2 week break - congested fixture list (before and during this period):

 

 

After the 2 week break - less congested fixture list (on the back of a break):

 

I don't think it's a massive conspiracy to suggest our horrific form around Christmas and the New Year was down to fatigue, and that our increased form after a 2 week break (playing around 2 games less a month) is due to us regaining some energy.

 

We're still not great, but we are atleast competitive for a full 90 minutes now.

This is just high-variance outcomes from high-volume chances, both for and against. The underlying trend has not improved. (Villa was good though.)

[Hanshithispantz]

Why would I give more weight to a rolling xG average graph over the actual results and performances? 

 

I'm not arguing that we are playing well, but we've been able to put a run of results together in games we've been competitive in for the full 90. And this was without a number 9 in a couple of them.

 

You'd be lucky to pick 2 consecutive games in the Christmas period where were legitimately competitive throughout.

 

 

Edited February 29 by Hanshithispantz

[Bellis80]

Because every club in the league uses xg to assess performance rather than results.

[Hanshithispantz]

 fuck it, this is just getting stupid

[80]

18 minutes ago, Hanshithispantz said:

Why would I give more weight to a rolling xG average graph over the actual results and performances? 

 

I'm not arguing that we are playing well, but we've been able to put a run of results together in games we've been competitive in for the full 90. And this was without a number 9 in a couple of them.

 

You'd be lucky to pick 2 consecutive games in the Christmas period where were legitimately competitive.

 

 

 

From memory, I'd actually argue our displays in the first 45 minutes of matches in December were better in many ways than they have been in the last few weeks. The killer then was that we would essentially evaporate in the second half, whereas, as you say, we're more competitive through the 90 minutes now.

[ikri]

4 hours ago, Shearergol said:

think everyone’s in agreement that the two main issues are the midfield 3, and Pope missing. That hasn’t changed.

 

even with players coming back, our “best” players just as Bruno, Gordon and Isak are visibly knackered. The fact that Willock and Barnes are coming back in will start to help, but we’re weeks away from it.

 

We fundamentally changed the way we play this season too in order to accommodate Gordon and Barnes as wide forwards.  Last season, most of the time we had Joelinton and Willock either on the left of the midfield three or in the wide left forward position.  They would swap around during the game as well which made it a nightmare to defend against them and the wide forward was able to drop back into the midfield easily giving us more bodies when required.  With Miggy's constant running we were able to switch between a 4-3-3 and a 4-5-1 with ease and then as soon as we were in the position to go on the attack, those wide midfield players were suddenly forwards again.  It was all very dynamic and very successful.

This season, with Gordon playing up there instead, he hasn't been able to fill the same role as an ad-hoc midfielder, instead he's been an ad-hoc centre forward.  Barnes is the same, he's a forward rather than a midfielder.  If we'd had Bruno, Tonali, Willock and Joelinton all available this season we might have found some sort of balance but with the injuries on top of the change in style everything has gone a bit tits up.

[Jagten]

31 minutes ago, Hanshithispantz said:

Why would I give more weight to a rolling xG average graph over the actual results and performances? 

 

I'm not arguing that we are playing well, but we've been able to put a run of results together in games we've been competitive in for the full 90. And this was without a number 9 in a couple of them.

 

You'd be lucky to pick 2 consecutive games in the Christmas period where were legitimately competitive throughout.

Depends how much you care about estimating latent quantities from noisy data (results), especially with a small sample size. I don't visually think performances have improved either. 

[Solitude20]

22 minutes ago, Hanshithispantz said:

Why would I give more weight to a rolling xG average graph over the actual results and performances? 

 

I'm not arguing that we are playing well, but we've been able to put a run of results together in games we've been competitive in for the full 90. And this was without a number 9 in a couple of them.

 

You'd be lucky to pick 2 consecutive games in the Christmas period where were legitimately competitive throughout.

 

 

 

Because xG is a very important performance indicator. It is a metric of the quality of chances created by a team, which sometimes tells a different story than the final score. The Liverpool match is a great example of why xG has become an important metric in assessing performance in recent years. 

[Bellis80]

20 minutes ago, Hanshithispantz said:

 fuck it, this is just getting stupid

You should probably let every club in the world know that you watching a game and looking at the score is a better indicator than xg.

[Kanji]

29 minutes ago, ikri said:

 

We fundamentally changed the way we play this season too in order to accommodate Gordon and Barnes as wide forwards.  Last season, most of the time we had Joelinton and Willock either on the left of the midfield three or in the wide left forward position.  They would swap around during the game as well which made it a nightmare to defend against them and the wide forward was able to drop back into the midfield easily giving us more bodies when required.  With Miggy's constant running we were able to switch between a 4-3-3 and a 4-5-1 with ease and then as soon as we were in the position to go on the attack, those wide midfield players were suddenly forwards again.  It was all very dynamic and very successful.

This season, with Gordon playing up there instead, he hasn't been able to fill the same role as an ad-hoc midfielder, instead he's been an ad-hoc centre forward.  Barnes is the same, he's a forward rather than a midfielder.  If we'd had Bruno, Tonali, Willock and Joelinton all available this season we might have found some sort of balance but with the injuries on top of the change in style everything has gone a bit tits up.

 

Sometimes I wonder about this too, if they were all fit maybe Gordon eventually just starts getting the reps more and more on the right side. I always thought he was the perfect Miggy replacement....but then outta no where he broke out a LWF.

[Geogaddi]

I think a lot of the narrative about Eddie being under pressure comes from social media which you tend to find are not the regular match goers , I haven't heard much discontent at any home or away game this season about Eddie and I say that as a season ticket holder, so you can take what is being said about him online with a pinch of salt .

[Hanshithispantz]

37 minutes ago, Jagten said:

Depends how much you care about estimating latent quantities from noisy data (results), especially with a small sample size. I don't visually think performances have improved either. 

The xG over that period is still noisy data though (and that's without even touching on the fact xG is pure noise itself), applying it to a larger rolling average doesn't give it enough weight to discount a 5 game unbeaten streak.

 

Again, if I was arguing that we are playing well, or didn't look a joke at the back, I would understand these critisisms. I just think we've went from looking a free hit from the start, or absolutely fucked after 60 minutes every other game, to actually looking capable of going 90 minutes every week.

 

 

Edited February 29 by Hanshithispantz

[Big Jow]

14 minutes ago, Geogaddi said:

I think a lot of the narrative about Eddie being under pressure comes from social media which you tend to find are not the regular match goers , I haven't heard much discontent at any home or away game this season about Eddie and I say that as a season ticket holder, so you can take what is being said about him online with a pinch of salt .

 

Disagree. I’ve heard a lot of what is repeated on here on matchdays home and away (the sensible stuff obviously, not about comparisons with Bruce).

[Away Toon]

what isn't in doubt is that we were absolutely appalling against Blackburn with a strong team and a reasonable bench. We were abject. 

[timeEd32]

13 minutes ago, Hanshithispantz said:

The xG over that period is still noisy data though (and that's without even touching on the fact xG is pure noise itself), applying it to a larger rolling average doesn't give it enough weight to discount a 5 game unbeaten streak.

 

Again, if I was arguing that we are playing well, or didn't look a joke at the back, I would understand these critisisms. I just think we've went from looking a free hit from the start, or absolutely fucked after 60 minutes every other game, to actually looking capable of going 90 minutes every week.

 

 

 

 

I agree with the part that we are now able to compete for 90 minutes. We aren't dead on our feet anymore though I still think there are lingering effects. I'm actually surprised where you made the split for comparison. Overall I think we had a much better January than February.

 

Sunderland - Not spectacular, but given our form and the occasion we did well

City - Competed well for 60-70 minutes. We had no fresh legs or answers for De Bruyne and other changes. Fair enough

Fulham - Not the greatest, but decent enough away from home.

Villa - The best we've looked by far since November.

----------

Luton - Crazy game; got a pass from me because I still think three games in a week, especially then, is a problem for us

Forest - Pretty fortunate to get 3 points. This is one that highlights our ability to compete better now, but it wasn't good. And a lot of midfield/defensive problems on full display.

Bournemouth - Also competing, but not good. Draw maybe fair, but if anything lucky to get a point.

Arsenal - Overrun from the first minute. 

Blackburn - I think we got better after the first half and in December I don't think we could have pushed in the first part of extra time like we did the other night. Competing, but not good.

 

The more time passes the more confused I am by the Villa game. I don't think I'm smart enough to understand why at least parts of that performance haven't reappeared in the subsequent month, although I'm sure the fact that the same midfield three had to play seven games in a row is not helping.

[Jagten]

38 minutes ago, Hanshithispantz said:

xG over that period is still noisy data though (and that's without even touching on the fact xG is pure noise itself), applying it to a larger rolling average doesn't give it enough weight to discount a 5 game unbeaten streak.

 

Again, if I was arguing that we are playing well, or didn't look a joke at the back, I would understand these critisisms. I just think we've went from looking a free hit from the start, or absolutely fucked after 60 minutes every other game, to actually looking capable of going 90 minutes every week.

It's actually an exponential moving average FWIW, so it does weight toward more recent games. We can look at the individual games too and they weren't good. We were, for example, very lucky to win at Forest.  

 

 

Edited February 29 by Jagten

[Toon1892]

58 minutes ago, Geogaddi said:

I think a lot of the narrative about Eddie being under pressure comes from social media which you tend to find are not the regular match goers , I haven't heard much discontent at any home or away game this season about Eddie and I say that as a season ticket holder, so you can take what is being said about him online with a pinch of salt .

Agree with this entirely! Been to 13 away games this season and every home match. What you read online is completely different to what the actual fans that go to games are saying.

[Hanshithispantz]

50 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

 

I agree with the part that we are now able to compete for 90 minutes. We aren't dead on our feet anymore though I still think there are lingering effects. I'm actually surprised where you made the split for comparison. Overall I think we had a much better January than February.

 

Sunderland - Not spectacular, but given our form and the occasion we did well

City - Competed well for 60-70 minutes. We had no fresh legs or answers for De Bruyne and other changes. Fair enough

Fulham - Not the greatest, but decent enough away from home.

Villa - The best we've looked by far since November.

----------

Luton - Crazy game; got a pass from me because I still think three games in a week, especially then, is a problem for us

Forest - Pretty fortunate to get 3 points. This is one that highlights our ability to compete better now, but it wasn't good. And a lot of midfield/defensive problems on full display.

Bournemouth - Also competing, but not good. Draw maybe fair, but if anything lucky to get a point.

Arsenal - Overrun from the first minute. 

Blackburn - I think we got better after the first half and in December I don't think we could have pushed in the first part of extra time like we did the other night. Competing, but not good.

 

The more time passes the more confused I am by the Villa game. I don't think I'm smart enough to understand why at least parts of that performance haven't reappeared in the subsequent month, although I'm sure the fact that the same midfield three had to play seven games in a row is not helping.

I just looked before and after the 2 week break, post City.

 

      

[Big Jow]

58 minutes ago, Toon1892 said:

Agree with this entirely! Been to 13 away games this season and every home match. What you read online is completely different to what the actual fans that go to games are saying.

 

Whilst I go to games myself, this is grim.

Attending games doesn’t make you more or less of a fan.

[Toon1892]

30 minutes ago, Big Jow said:

 

Whilst I go to games myself, this is grim.

Attending games doesn’t make you more or less of a fan.

Apologies if that’s offended you. My point was more fans at games are verifiable. A lot of the online stuff could be coming from mackems/ kids/ people that have supported (followed may be a better word) for 30 mins and want instant success.

 

My point being that the ‘actual’ NUFC fans whether that online followers or people that go to the match are more patient (surely) than what I read on twitter.

 

The fact some people are calling for Howe to go blows my mind. 
 

Arteta had two 8th place finishes and Arsenal fans were patient with him. We can’t just change the manager when the going has been tough for 10 games. 
 

After a lifetime of supporting this club I’m so disappointed in our fan base and it genuinely makes me sad to see what many fans have become.

 

Even if we had the best manager of all time it was never going to be too 6 every season. We have backup players such as Ritchie, Dummet, Murphy, Lascelles (I could go on). Most people need to get a grip.

[Optimistic Nut]

1 hour ago, Toon1892 said:

Agree with this entirely! Been to 13 away games this season and every home match. What you read online is completely different to what the actual fans that go to games are saying.

 

A lot of those same fans went to games while Bruce was manager and never said a word against him so hardly good judges tbf.

[Toon1892]

2 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

A lot of those same fans went to games while Bruce was manager and never said a word against him so hardly good judges tbf.

Are you genuinely saying the crowd hostility is the same for Howe now as it was for Bruce!? Like really!? Come on mate…

[Toon1892]

The accounts on twitter with lots of followers don’t help. It’s in their interest to have a go/ want change/ drum up reactions. The easiest way to do that is to call for Howe to go. Whether they actually want that is a different matter. 
 

Unfortunately they have a big influence on the younger fan base and probably those fans who are more easily influenced by what they read on social media.

 

Really sad to see what’s happening with our fans. I used to think we were up there with the best. Not now. If the majority genuinely want Howe gone we have a pathetic fan base and that hurts saying that.