Eddie Howe

[et tu brute]

8 minutes ago, KingArthur said:

"People need to stop trying to make excuses, that performance was as bad as it gets"

So this is a fact, not an opinion?

That's an opinion, the facts are Man U beat them, as have another 11 teams in 24 games; and that we are more than able to play a high intensity and pressing game at home against them. As I said talking shite

[KingArthur]

Just now, et tu brute said:

That's an opinion, the facts are Man U beat them, as have another 11 teams in 24 games; and that we are more than able to play a high intensity and pressing game at home against them. As I said talking shite

And we played them away. So totally different. Seems like we cannot agree on this topic, so I see no point to continue this conversation. 

[et tu brute]

3 minutes ago, KingArthur said:

And we played them away. So totally different. Seems like we cannot agree on this topic, so I see no point to continue this conversation. 

Aye thank fuck for that 

 

 

Edited Monday at 09:23 by et tu brute

[KingArthur]

7 minutes ago, Fak said:

Yes our squad lacks depth but our side when fit is not mediocre. 

We might disagree with the meaning of mediocre. I would say we are 6-8th best squad if you look first XI. Then if you look at the bench, we are quite weak. 

 

Lot to do if we want to challenge for UCL every season.

[KingArthur]

2 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

Ate thank fuck for that 

Aye you seem like nice bloke.

[Fak]

Just now, KingArthur said:

We might disagree with the meaning of mediocre. I would say we are 6-8th best squad if you look first XI. Then if you look at the bench, we are quite weak. 

 

Lot to do if we want to challenge for UCL every season.

Yep I agree with all that, just disputing that a side good enough for 6th at best is mediocre. Thats all!

[The Prophet]

It feels like you lads are all on the same page, but are arguing about semantics?

[Kid Icarus]

I see some similarities with the Southgate arguments from a couple of years ago.

 

"He's done really well because he got a constantly poorly performing side to a semi final and two finals"

 

"They can't be a poor side, they got to a semi final and two finals - they're generational talents!"

 

Basically I think it's about the extent to which you think success comes down to the manager or the players. 

 

In our case I think the overwhelming majority of the reason we are where we are is down to Howe, and that nigh on everything you look at points to that being the case.

[Shush]

Just now, Kid Icarus said:

I see some similarities with the Southgate arguments from a couple of years ago.

 

"He's done really well because he got a constantly poorly performing side to a semi final and two finals"

 

"They can't be a poor side, they got to a semi final and two finals - they're generational talents!"

 

Basically I think it's about the extent to which you think success comes down to the manager or the players. 

 

In our case I think the overwhelming majority of the reason we are where we are is down to Howe, and that nigh on everything you look at points to that being the case.

 

We punch above our weight because of what Howe has done, but without good squad depth and continously upgrading to ensure competition is fierce, things can go stale and we stop punching about weight.

 

The Miggy purple patch, stop gap signing Burn being ever present, Murphy's great contributions, Krafths turnaround or the transformation of Joelinton - it's all down to Eddie, but it's not sustainable for top 4. At some point quality that doesn't need Eddie coaching needs to be ready on the bench or rotating with existing high quality players.

 

 

[TRon]

2 hours ago, et tu brute said:

They have lost 12 out of the last 24 or 25 games, including a home defeat against a dreadful Man Utd team. We also are able to give them more than a decent game up here at home, the pressing and intensity works fine then. That performance on Saturday was an utter disgrace from the 1st minute. Never mind the issues I've already highlighted for Saturday In this thread, the lack of effort throughout the game was abysmal

 

 

I watched the game back, I don't agree that there was a lack of effort from the first minute.We were actually competing fairly well for the first 10 mins or so and closing them down. That first goal really seemed to knock us for a loop, not surprising considering how bad it was from so many different angles. After that the pressing became half hearted and it seemed to me the players lost confidence in what they were supposed to be doing.

 

It's not the first time it's happened either, we quite often end up conceding in a similar manner with everyone caught out of position and getting a drubbing. We play a high risk style, and when it works it's great. When it doesn't we can look very amateurish. I agree that Man City didn't just transform back into world beaters. I think our tactics played into their hands. Whether that was because they were the wrong tactics or just poor execution is the question.

[wyn davies]

3 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

 

I watched the game back, I don't agree that there was a lack of effort from the first minute.We were actually competing fairly well for the first 10 mins or so and closing them down. That first goal really seemed to knock us for a loop, not surprising considering how bad it was from so many different angles. After that the pressing became half hearted and it seemed to me the players lost confidence in what they were supposed to be doing.

 

It's not the first time it's happened either, we quite often end up conceding in a similar manner with everyone caught out of position and getting a drubbing. We play a high risk style, and when it works it's great. When it doesn't we can look very amateurish. I agree that Man City didn't just transform back into world beaters. I think our tactics played into their hands. Whether that was because they were the wrong tactics or just poor execution is the question.

Unfortunately there are a minimum of 90 in a game, I can beat someone over 2 yds running wise and I'm late 60's but anything beyond that and it's game over.It doesn't matter how good we compete over 10mins , if we can't beyond that.

[Bimpy474]

I don't think we have the 6th to 8th (just my opinion is all) best squad or 1st 11. We have some great players, OK ones and average ones. 

 

Howe makes them better because he's good, that good. The sum of its parts molded by Howe is very good. 

 

We need to upgrade those average and ok players, and by God we'd be flying, however, as we know PSR is making that a near impossible task, well a very slow one.

[TheBrownBottle]

10 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

I see some similarities with the Southgate arguments from a couple of years ago.

 

"He's done really well because he got a constantly poorly performing side to a semi final and two finals"

 

"They can't be a poor side, they got to a semi final and two finals - they're generational talents!"

 

Basically I think it's about the extent to which you think success comes down to the manager or the players. 

 

In our case I think the overwhelming majority of the reason we are where we are is down to Howe, and that nigh on everything you look at points to that being the case.

Spot on - I think you’re absolutely right re this.  It really does boil down to how good you think our side / squad is - which is all opinion, of course.

 

For me, I think we’ve got about four-fifths of a really, really good side, and an ok squad when fully fit.  We’ve good options for some positions; less than good for others.  Basically, I think we’ve got a talented side which should be comfortably top six / seven.  Anything above that is overperformance.  Which is why I think Howe is doing a good, not a great, job at the moment - but I do think he did a great job in his first season and a half.  This last season and a half has been good, with some issues (some more serious than others - for me, the increasingly ‘streaky’ nature of performances is becoming a worrying trend - we jolt from looking invincible for long runs of games, to looking like the players have never met before for long runs of games).

 

I think a side with the likes of Isak, Bruno, Tonali, Gordon, Botman (when fit) etc already has five or six players who would walk into any side other than two or three in the division (Isak into pretty much any side).  There’s talented young’uns like Hall and Livramento who would walk into any team outside of the top six or seven sides.  And then players like Joelinton and Murphy who are solid PL players who - thanks in no small part to Howe’s coaching - are playing well above their ‘level’.  So I think that the talent is there to be doing what we’re doing, and I wouldn’t expect any half-decent manager to have that squad outside the top half of the table.  

 

I’ve no issue with folks who think Howe is performing wonders (I disagree at present, though I think his coaching of young players breaking in remains second to none).  I’ve no issues with folks who think he should be doing much better (I disagree with this, with the caveat that the performances have been more poor than good on average this season).  All eye of the beholder stuff.  

[et tu brute]

22 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

 

I watched the game back, I don't agree that there was a lack of effort from the first minute.We were actually competing fairly well for the first 10 mins or so and closing them down. That first goal really seemed to knock us for a loop, not surprising considering how bad it was from so many different angles. After that the pressing became half hearted and it seemed to me the players lost confidence in what they were supposed to be doing.

 

It's not the first time it's happened either, we quite often end up conceding in a similar manner with everyone caught out of position and getting a drubbing. We play a high risk style, and when it works it's great. When it doesn't we can look very amateurish. I agree that Man City didn't just transform back into world beaters. I think our tactics played into their hands. Whether that was because they were the wrong tactics or just poor execution is the question.

Disagree, I thought we were laying off them from the start and I don't think we touched the ball for a good three or four minutes. The goal was down to Trippier, who after a great couple of years, has been so error prone. I couldn't believe people were advocating him being first choice. Our pressing has been missing in a number of games over the last season and a half (including a few home games)

 

 

Edited Monday at 10:45 by et tu brute

[The Prophet]

If we're talking about top bracket players, for me, of the side that started on Saturday, only Tonali, Bruno and Isak fit that category.

 

Hall and Gordon are well on their way, but still learning the game and are prone to inconsistencies.

 

The rest are players who are of a midtable calibre who Howe has had overperforming at various points over the last few years or once brilliant players who's age are beginning to catch up with them.

 

 

Edited Monday at 10:54 by The Prophet

[TheBrownBottle]

4 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

If we're talking about top bracket players, for me, of the side that started on Saturday, only Tonali, Bruno and Isak fit that category.

 

Hall and Gordon are well on their way, but still learning the game and are prone to inconsistencies.

 

The rest are players who are of a midtable calibre who Howe has had overperforming at various points over the last few years or once brilliant players who's age are beginning to catch up with them.

 

 

 

It’s a reasonable point, though I’d ask - who amongst our real competitors (Forest, Bournemouth, Villa, Fulham, Brighton) would you say has either a better first XI or squad than us?

 

I don’t think we have a better XI or squad than Liverpool, Arsenal, Man City or Chelsea.  But I think several of our competitors would swap their teams for ours - and given we’ve spent in some cases a lot more than them, I’d hope that would be true. 

[The Prophet]

3 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

It’s a reasonable point, though I’d ask - who amongst our real competitors (Forest, Bournemouth, Villa, Fulham, Brighton) would you say has either a better first XI or squad than us?

 

I don’t think we have a better XI or squad than Liverpool, Arsenal, Man City or Chelsea.  But I think several of our competitors would swap their teams for ours - and given we’ve spent in some cases a lot more than them, I’d hope that would be true. 

 

In recent seasons our competitors have been Chelsea, Man United, Spurs and Villa. You could argue the toss on first teams, but they all have deeper squads for sure. It's just a consequence of Ashley's chronic lack of investment in transfers and the academy.

 

 

Edited Monday at 14:04 by The Prophet