Eddie Howe

[Interpolic]

On 07/12/2023 at 21:35, The College Dropout said:

We play away from home like we are conserving our energy for home games.  We need to play with our intensity for as long as we can and try to hang on at the end. 

 

On 07/12/2023 at 22:27, The College Dropout said:

We didn’t even try it today.  I think he’s being cautious because he wants the team to stay injury free and last 90 minutes. But we aren’t going to win away from home unless we do the hard running game.  

 

On 07/12/2023 at 22:29, The College Dropout said:

My only concern today was the general performance. We needed to start with more intensity.  

 

Weird that the rotation ultra was suggesting we needed to play with more intensity after the first game of our dodgy run (Everton). 

 

Presumably these youngsters who nobody thinks are ready would have been capable of coming into the side and meeting his standards.

 

The revisionist nonsense in this thread is insane.

[Cf]

You don't just throw the reserves under the bus with "All right lads you're gonna be up so the real players can have a rest. You're gonna get spanked but don't worry about it. Better to lose this game you're playing in than other games the first teamers will play".

 

 

Edited January 17 by Cf

[GEFAFWISP]

I think there is a case to be made that players on the fringes during the deepest parts of the injury crisis, like Ndiweni, Diallo, Parkinson, Murphy or even De Bolle could've alleviated some tired legs for 15-20 minutes instead of playing multiple matches on the trot without any subs and as a consequence putting the playing squad's fatigue further in the red. I don't think making those changes to a starting XI would've particularly helped however. Also, in saying this, the early season lack of rotation wasn't a particular problem at the time and sans injuries (or Tonali...) I don't think we would've been too hamstrung by the busier schedule although we'd still see and expect a downturn in form (6th as opposed 9th perhaps).

[80]

If we acknowledge that as a club, we've confirmed this season that we don't have a squad that can compete successfully on four fronts, we basically have two choices - try all four badly or prioritise the most important competition/s.

 

The reason I'm talking about playing children is because, thanks to injuries, they are our second XI right now. I don't like it, but it's true. It wouldn't be so controversial if we were talking about Livramento for Trippier and Longstaff for Tonali, but that isn't the choice we've had. All the same, there are going to be matches - given our schedule - where we need to play our second XI to avoid burning out the first team. Brighton did it against us last season in our Champions' League (almost) clincher at SJP, to maximise their own chances of qualifying for Europe a few days later. We just didn't notice because a) we were too happy smashing them and b) they played their reserves rather than their reserve reserves.

 

Another option is to drizzle in reserves a couple at a time e.g. Gordon for Godknows on Saturday, Almiron for Whodat on Wednesday. A problem with that is we weaken ourselves across multiple matches rather than ripping off the plaster. And probably miss out on the squad training that Eddie desperately wanted.

 

Yet another alternative is to send out the first team, like we did, but change their instructions to play a low speed, low energy match. Just keep it respectable, lads. But Eddie won't countenance that and I don't blame him. It's bad for the psyche.

 

Instead, we put out our best possible players and told them to invest their blood, sweat and tears. And they did, until they ran out. And then we kept asking for several more weeks. And we lost almost every game we played, and seemingly pushed some of them past their physical limits, harming the next several months of the season.

 

Considering we could've given the whole first team all of December off and still be pretty much exactly where we are now, position and competition-wise, I can't see why giving the kids a match to disrupt the onslaught of games is such a shocking idea.

[The College Dropout]

48 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

So in conclusion, with the benefit of hindsight and without any of the knowledge and information Howe had at his disposal, we should have fielded a partial amount or a full team of youngsters, to give the first team an extra two to three days rest and hope it was sufficient to recharge the batteries?

 

 

 

 

Me and others have been saying he should do this for months. I said it regarding the Man U league cup game and thought he should've rotated before that as well. This reality - has been months in the making. It didn't start in December or November, it started from day dot.

5 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

 

Eddie's rotation policy is up for debate, but whether it would have had any impact on our plight is difficult to gauge.

 

The conversation is often framed very factually, when there's a hell of a lot of nuance involved.

At the least - we would have a less fatigued first-team. That much is a scientific fact no?

 

4 minutes ago, Lush Vlad said:

IWho were we supposed to rotate these players with? 
 

If we want to use hindsight. Then earlier in the season when games were won or at least when we had options. Changing the starting XI around or making subs earlier would

have been nice. Plenty mentioned that at the time, TBF. Might have meant we avoided some of these injuries and the burnout. Who knows. 

 

If anyone was genuinely advocating starting the kids and by their own admission. Effectively throwing the game. Then thank fuck they’re not in charge. 
 

 

 

 

 

Literally, any player that is eligible. The purpose is to save legs.

 

Yes I agree, we should've rotated earlier in the season too. I thought it was strange at the time that Tonali didn't start any games when the investigation started. If to only save others' legs later in the season - he was worth starting. People on here said this at the time too - this isn't hindsight.

[80]

23 minutes ago, Cf said:

You don't just throw the reserves under the bus with "All right lads you're gonna be up so the real players can have a rest. You're gonna get spanked but don't worry about it. Better to lose this game you're playing in than other games the first teamers will play".

 

 

 

It doesn't need to be that negative though, does it? As it is, they've been told "alright lads, you see those real players over there? The crippled ones getting smacked by Luton. They're still far far better than you. Please remain seated."

[TRon]

28 minutes ago, Cf said:

You don't just throw the reserves under the bus with "All right lads you're gonna be up so the real players can have a rest. You're gonna get spanked but don't worry about it. Better to lose this game you're playing in than other games the first teamers will play".

 

 

 

 

They're the reserves, they wouldn't be expected to replace the first teamers. Their job would be to come on as subs, probably in the latter stages just to bring the guys who have been run into the ground off. I would have thought most aspiring squad players would be relishing the opportunity to get a run out and show what they can do.

 

Just give them a limited role with nothing too complicated to do and even inexperienced players should be ok with that.

[80]

12 minutes ago, GEFAFWISP said:

I think there is a case to be made that players on the fringes during the deepest parts of the injury crisis, like Ndiweni, Diallo, Parkinson, Murphy or even De Bolle could've alleviated some tired legs for 15-20 minutes instead of playing multiple matches on the trot without any subs and as a consequence putting the playing squad's fatigue further in the red. I don't think making those changes to a starting XI would've particularly helped however. Also, in saying this, the early season lack of rotation wasn't a particular problem at the time and sans injuries (or Tonali...) I don't think we would've been too hamstrung by the busier schedule although we'd still see and expect a downturn in form (6th as opposed 9th perhaps).

Playing the kids more as relatively early subs is a very fair shout. But I'm not convinced it would've made a significant difference once we were already in the bad run. I'm not a sports scientist but I doubt playing 25 minutes less in a game or two would make that much of a difference when you're stuck on a long term treadmill of a game every three days.

 

Again, a big part of Eddie's explanation for how things have gone - which I agree with - is that the players have basically had no opportunity to do anything except rest between games, which I don't think substitutions would've done enough to alleviate.

[The Prophet]

Quote

 

Me and others have been saying he should do this for months. I said it regarding the Man U league cup game and thought he should've rotated before that as well. This reality - has been months in the making. It didn't start in December or November, it started from day dot.

 

The pool of players to rotate has been severely diminished since around November time, due to non-fatigue related absences.

 

The conversation above was about selecting youth players, during our lowest ebb, in an attempt to provide first team players with more rest and recovery time.

 

Quote

At the least - we would have a less fatigued first-team. That much is a scientific fact no?

 

It's a non-scientific opinion.  

[The College Dropout]

28 minutes ago, Interpolic said:

 

 

 

Weird that the rotation ultra was suggesting we needed to play with more intensity after the first game of our dodgy run (Everton). 

 

Presumably these youngsters who nobody thinks are ready would have been capable of coming into the side and meeting his standards.

 

The revisionist nonsense in this thread is insane.

 

 

I've BEEN suggested Howe needs to rotate significantly - play any kid if necessary. The same people who liked my posts then - are making the same argument now. No revisionism.

On 18/12/2023 at 13:46, The College Dropout said:

I would rest Tino and Gordon.  I would even consider benching Bruno.
 

I think Howe starts a close to full strength team with maybe the players most in the red zone going on the bench like Gordon.  

[Likelylad]

The PSG game. Isak was literally unable to move. Dead on his feet. Parkinson could've atleast closed down and chased the balls we were just lumping long.

[The College Dropout]

1 hour ago, Isaksbigrightfoot said:

This suggests that Eddie does in fact play his best 11 regardless of fatigue?

Yes - he does. He did it at Bournemouth and he's doing it here. That's his style.

 

1 hour ago, 80 said:

Personally, I'm pretty sure I posted here in early December that the whole month gonna be a write off, and I'm not known for being pessimistic. I thought it was blatantly obvious nothing would change - without a change in approach - given the nature of the injuries and density of the workload.

 

I wasn't in the habit of shouting about it because you're right, I didn't have inside knowledge of Howe's mind and the training data we had. But as it happens, using the info I did have, I was right. I don't especially blame Howe or anyone for how things have turned out either. It was a shit situation, and it's pretty clear he'd have had some fans all over him had he tried anything other than to win every single game.

 

All the same, if your car battery is flat, you don't generally want to turn the radio on and turn the engine over a few times just to make sure it won't start. Lush earlier pointed out we lost lots of games by a big margin with our first team. Well, exactly, so there wasn't much to lose through not fielding them, right?

 

According to Howe, a bigger gap between games would've meant improved performances thanks to rest and proper training. I believe him. Instead we got multiple spankings and extra wear and tear which has possibly set us further back with the likes of Joelinton.

Top post. I think me and @Erikse were saying if we were too tired to compete against Everton, we would lose pretty much every game thereafter until the fixture congestion eased up because there was zero indication that Eddie would rotate and recover players.

 

A lack of rotation is a feature of Eddie's management. Doing Plan A better is a feature of Eddie's management. 

 

I've said as such for a long time. Eddie doesn't like to rotate. Even with low expectations, he's rested players even less than I thought he would.

 

And as more comes out... he does seem to also play players' through injuries and knocks and returns them early. He's done it with an injury-prone player in their 30s he'll do it with anyone.

 

That's his style. Momentum. Heart. 100% effort and commitment. Don't take a backwards step.

 

 

Edited January 17 by The College Dropout

[Ghandis Flip-Flop]

30 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

 

Me and others have been saying he should do this for months. I said it regarding the Man U league cup game 

 He should've rotated in the Man Utd league cup game? FFS you come out with some nonsense at times, but this takes the biscuit like. 
 

Reaquaint yourself with the team that started that match, after you’ve flagelated the hell out of yourself, come back into this thread and profusely apologise for the bollocks that you spout 🤦🏻

[The College Dropout]

7 minutes ago, Likelylad said:

The PSG game. Isak was literally unable to move. Dead on his feet. Parkinson could've atleast closed down and chased the balls we were just lumping long.

Multiple games Isak has barely been able to move and offered nothing on the counter. He stayed on. Literally anyone capable of running would've been better. Happens again and again. Gordon seemed to play for an age semi-injured against Chelsea. I believe Schar started a game carrying an injury that initially ruled him out and was brought off after 15 minutes anyway.

[The College Dropout]

1 minute ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said:

 He should've rotated in the Man Utd league cup game? FFS you come out with some nonsense at times, but this takes the biscuit like. 
 

Reaquaint yourself with the team that started that match, after you’ve flagelated the hell out of yourself, come back into this thread and profusely apologise for the bollocks that you spout 🤦🏻

I would've rotated more. And kept the lads out the squad or on the bench for 90 minutes.

 

I would've done the same against City & Chelsea (as I also showed).

 

I simply didn't/don't see how we could attack the League Cup, the Champions League, the league and FA Cup with our squad successfully. That's always been my opinion.

 

Now I admit - had we not conceded a fluke goal against Chelsea, I would have taken our current predicament gladly. But my overall thought is right - we have too little quality to compete on 4 fronts. As @80 said - you have to prioritise.

[The Prophet]

There are small windows where Howe could have potentially rotated, without bringing youth players into the equation. The second half at Sheffield United springs to mind.

 

There was nothing to stop him playing a youth team at Spurs or Luton, but it's guesswork to say it would have had a dramatically positive impact on performances.

[The College Dropout]

Stop with this "small windows" stuff.

 

The man doesn't like to rotate. There are plenty of examples of other managers rotating players in the league, away from home. Someone gave you the DeZerbi example against us.

 

You don't want to engage with ideas genuinely.

[The Prophet]

3 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Stop with this "small windows" stuff.

 

The man doesn't like to rotate. There are plenty of examples of other managers rotating players in the league, away from home. Someone gave you the DeZerbi example against us.

 

You don't want to engage with ideas genuinely.

 

Debating is engaging with ideas, no?

 

Have you mistaken me with someone else? I wasn't discussing De Zerbi or Howe's wider management philosophy. I responded to a pretty narrow point.

[Lotus]

I have a real respect, admiration and genuine affection for Eddie Howe. 
 

I am, however a fan of NUFC. It’s the club that matters above all.

 

That some of you won’t even entertain a discussion is bordering on Ghoeber Xing.

[timeEd32]

I don't disagree about some additional rotation and/or earlier subs in some games. I don't think Bruno, Wilson, or Trippier should have come on in the Man United cup game up 3-0. Subs could have been made earlier against Sheffield United, Palace, Villa (though it was the first game), Burnley, and possibly Chelsea with little or no risk to the result.

 

But there's a couple problems looking at this in hindsight (even for those who were saying it for certain games):

 

1) There is a natural bias based on the results. It's easy now to say we should have rested against Luton or Spurs or Everton or Bournemouth because we came away with nothing. Do people wish we played kids against Arsenal, Chelsea, Man United, or Fulham? Maybe, but it's not being said as much because then 3 points are at risk.

 

The last week we looked anything like ourselves was Chelsea > PSG > Man United. 6 points and minutes away from a massive CL result. That week also destroyed what the players had left. Should we have given one of those up for the sake of December? Maybe in hindsight, though there weren't many complaints at the time.

 

I also would have rotated more for Luton or Forest, but which one do you pick? The home game that is in theory easier or the away game because it's got short rest on either side? The common answer now would likely be 'either' but that's strongly influenced by the outcomes we now know.

 

2) The second XI for at least two months has been woefully short of PL quality. Personally (and I thought this at the time) I think we should have effectively conceded Spurs away. We had two days of rest after Everton, where the final 10 minutes showed us the state of things, and we had Milan coming up days later. But I think if we had rested for that game we would have been on the end of a genuinely embarrassing scoreline. Like potential PL record scoreline given their quality and the memory of what we did to them in April. I'm certain some on Eddie's back now would have also been furious at that. It may have been the difference against Milan, but we don't know for sure.

 

 

Edited January 17 by timeEd32

[80]

19 minutes ago, Lotus said:

I have a real respect, admiration and genuine affection for Eddie Howe. 

I am, however a fan of NUFC. It’s the club that matters above all.

That some of you won’t even entertain a discussion is bordering on Ghoeber Xing.

Out of respect to my opponents, this is harsh

 

 

Edited January 17 by 80

[Myleftboot]

50 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Yes - he does. He did it at Bournemouth and he's doing it here. That's his style.

 

Top post. I think me and @Erikse were saying if we were too tired to compete against Everton, we would lose pretty much every game thereafter until the fixture congestion eased up because there was zero indication that Eddie would rotate and recover players.

 

A lack of rotation is a feature of Eddie's management. Doing Plan A better is a feature of Eddie's management. 

 

I've said as such for a long time. Eddie doesn't like to rotate. Even with low expectations, he's rested players even less than I thought he would.

 

And as more comes out... he does seem to also play players' through injuries and knocks and returns them early. He's done it with an injury-prone player in their 30s he'll do it with anyone.

 

That's his style. Momentum. Heart. 100% effort and commitment. Don't take a backwards step.

 

 

 

He mentioned he likes consistency. So probably the formation we play,the intensity we use and the first 11 to be same.

[Optimistic Nut]

I'm sure the list of managers who have Howe's ability, can rotate the squad while also ironing out all of his tactical weaknesses are queuing up.

[The College Dropout]

IMO you try to rotate in 3 scenarios:

(1) where you think you will win comfortably - Crystal Palace (H) for example. But for us.. these games are rare. Didn't take those few occasions. 

(2) when you are up by a wide margin early - this is the least beneficial type of resting IMO but Howe doesn't do this much either - Sheff U away for example.

(3) On a congested fixture list, you just pick 1 to rotate - 4 games in 14 days, pick 1 to rotate players. We didn't do that either.

 

All the teams that compete in the CL group stages need to rotate. The elite teams can rest players in 1 or 2 CL games. The rest have to rest players in domestic cup competitions and the league IMO. When it was easier to do it, Howe didn't. When it was harder to do it, Howe didn't do it.

 

If not for Burn's injury - we probably don't see much of Livra. The entire approach to rotation is wrong IMO. And there's history - here and at Bournemouth. So I can't cut Eddie as much slack as others are willing. There's too much evidence that he's a co-conspirator in this crisis.

 

And tbh - I think Klopp is similar (but more willing to rotate still). Hence why Liverpool have feast seasons and some really ropey ones. I hope this is a ropey one for Howe. But the rotation, fatigue thing is an area of weakness. Not just something that has happened through bad luck alone.

 

4 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

I'm sure the list of managers who have Howe's ability, can rotate the squad while also ironing out all of his tactical weaknesses are queuing up.

Yes finally we acknowledge he is a fallible human being who can make bad decisions. You are right - he is not perfect. Nobody else in this conversation is suggesting he's replaced though.

[80]

21 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

I don't disagree about some additional rotation and/or earlier subs in some games. I don't think Bruno, Wilson, or Trippier should have come on in the Man United cup game up 3-0. Subs could have been made earlier against Sheffield United, Palace, Villa (though it was the first game), Burnley, and possibly Chelsea with little or no risk to the result.

 

But there's a couple problems looking at this in hindsight (even for those who were saying it for certain games):

 

1) There is a natural bias based on the results. It's easy now to say we should have rested against Luton or Spurs or Everton or Bournemouth because we came away with nothing. Do people wish we played kids against Arsenal, Chelsea, Man United, or Fulham? Maybe, but it's not being said as much because then 3 points are at risk.

 

The last week we looked anything like ourselves was Chelsea > PSG > Man United. 6 points and minutes away from a massive CL result. That week also destroyed what the players had left. Should we have given one of those up for the sake of December? Maybe in hindsight, though there weren't many complaints at the time.

 

I also would have rotated more for Luton or Forest, but which one do you pick? The home game that is in theory easier or the away game because it's got short rest on either side? The common answer now would likely be 'either' but that's strongly influenced by the outcomes we now know.

 

2) The second XI for at least two months has been woefully short of PL quality. Personally (and I thought this at the time) I think we should have effectively conceded Spurs away. We had two days of rest after Everton, where the final 10 minutes showed us the state of things, and we had Milan coming up days later. But I think if we had rested for that game we would have been on the end of a genuinely embarrassing scoreline. Like potential PL record scoreline given their quality and the memory of what we did to them in April. I'm certain some on Eddie's back now would have also been furious at that. It may have been the difference against Milan, but we don't know for sure.

 

 

 

On your first point, it's fair comment about only talking about the defeats, but I think where we got our wins kind of proves my point - the Chelsea-PSG-Man U run came directly after an international break which had followed the capitulation at Bournemouth.

 

Certainly, I was worried after the Man United match as I knew what they'd all given was epic. And in terms of resting against big teams, well, I got a fair bit of stick on here last season when I was arguing that we should be prepared to accept fielding reserves in the Champions' League in order to prioritise a tricky away game against Brentford or Brighton this season, on the grounds that the league sustains the club's future. So I have form on that. The exact details are up for debate, but it's fair to say I didn't expect to play the same eleven players over and over again this season when I was saying that, though.