B-right-on
Living the dream
Looks like he's lost the will to live in this interviewHis career as a manager must surely be over now. Frank as a manager is a idea, but nothing more.
Looks like he's lost the will to live in this interviewHis career as a manager must surely be over now. Frank as a manager is a idea, but nothing more.
Must confess when I first saw team and players like Lallana/Tross on bench, Evan starting I did think RDZ was taking a gamble.But we did field a team of youngsters. You'll never win anything with kids.
It's because he's a moron.It seems that, if you don't have the talents of the the top sides, you get something against us by sitting deep, keeping spaces tight and breaking quickly. Villa and Spurs did it and won, Charlton, Newcastle, Forest all did it and got a draw. This is obvious to unqualified fans, so its hard to believe that nobody in Everton's coaching team was aware of this. Therefore, you have to wonder why Lampard changed from five at the back and tried to be more expansive.
Looks like he's lost the will to live in this interview
That puts a whole new spin on: Weir loose.they should know Weir as he played for them....
One of those training cones even contrived to knock themselves over for March's goalThey were definitely training cones for March's goal; shocking defending, matched only by Gueye's perfect pass to Groß for the 4th
Top post as ever. I think you have it, but it's for two reason, the first comes even more to the fore when you're midway through the season and flirting with the bottom three: three points in one game -- rather than trying to grind out three points in three games a la CH -- matters that much more; the 'big' club at home against a lil ol one would be the other, and this illustrates the role of fans and their expectations and how they can impact on decisions and performances.I thought last night an interesting contest in terms of what the opposition tried to do. Lampard has always struck me as a fairly decent organising coach and motivator, but yesterday suggested that either he's not a tactician, or he let hope get the better of him. He knew, as most would, that the only way to get something out of City was to defend and keep space tight. The draw suggested that he has the players that can do this. He then changed to a 4-3-3 against us, a team built in the image of Guardiola, and hoped that his players could take us on in a more expansive game.
In hindsight, its an obviously disastrous decision. A tiny bit of research would have shown that, if you try to press De Zerbi's Brighton, they will thank you for doing half of their job for them. Three against Southampton, two (should have been three) away at Arsenal, four against Chelsea: Our team will score in an open game. The likes of Arsenal, Liverpool and City have the players to take us on in this type of game, most other teams in the division don't.
It seems that, if you don't have the talents of the the top sides, you get something against us by sitting deep, keeping spaces tight and breaking quickly. Villa and Spurs did it and won, Charlton, Newcastle, Forest all did it and got a draw. This is obvious to unqualified fans, so its hard to believe that nobody in Everton's coaching team was aware of this. Therefore, you have to wonder why Lampard changed from five at the back and tried to be more expansive.
Perhaps he underestimated us, thinking that his players could rattle us with an early blitz like Arsenal did. However, his decision could also be a result of the pressure of managing a 'name' team at home. Was he thinking that the Goodison crowd would turn on his players if they watched them play a catenaccio type system against a 'team like Brighton'? Was he thinking that you don't get out of relegation trouble with draws against mid table sides? Did he think that his players were better, or our players were not as good as the result proved to be the case? Whatever the reason, it cost him the game and may cost him his job.
The psychology is, to me, really interesting. Potter used to mention often that the opposition will also have their plan. I wonder whether Lampard's playing history of mostly rolling over the opposition's plan has left him slightly ill equipped to give it proper consideration. If you have always been used to imposing your will on a contest, is it easy to adapt when you are without the tools that allowed you to do it? Does years of success create a confirmation bias that promotes unrealistic overconfidence? Could this be a contributing factor as to why relatively few of the great / most decorated players end up being great managers? I'm definitely reading too much into this, but it just got me thinking down a route that I found interesting.
Looks like he's lost the will to live in this interview
.......because Everton have a horde of entitled fans who would NEVER accept them going defensive at home vs #teamslikeBrightonI thought last night an interesting contest in terms of what the opposition tried to do. Lampard has always struck me as a fairly decent organising coach and motivator, but yesterday suggested that either he's not a tactician, or he let hope get the better of him. He knew, as most would, that the only way to get something out of City was to defend and keep space tight. The draw suggested that he has the players that can do this. He then changed to a 4-3-3 against us, a team built in the image of Guardiola, and hoped that his players could take us on in a more expansive game.
In hindsight, its an obviously disastrous decision. A tiny bit of research would have shown that, if you try to press De Zerbi's Brighton, they will thank you for doing half of their job for them. Three against Southampton, two (should have been three) away at Arsenal, four against Chelsea: Our team will score in an open game. The likes of Arsenal, Liverpool and City have the players to take us on in this type of game, most other teams in the division don't.
It seems that, if you don't have the talents of the the top sides, you get something against us by sitting deep, keeping spaces tight and breaking quickly. Villa and Spurs did it and won, Charlton, Newcastle, Forest all did it and got a draw. This is obvious to unqualified fans, so its hard to believe that nobody in Everton's coaching team was aware of this. Therefore, you have to wonder why Lampard changed from five at the back and tried to be more expansive.
Perhaps he underestimated us, thinking that his players could rattle us with an early blitz like Arsenal did. However, his decision could also be a result of the pressure of managing a 'name' team at home. Was he thinking that the Goodison crowd would turn on his players if they watched them play a catenaccio type system against a 'team like Brighton'? Was he thinking that you don't get out of relegation trouble with draws against mid table sides? Did he think that his players were better, or our players were not as good as the result proved to be the case? Whatever the reason, it cost him the game and may cost him his job.
The psychology is, to me, really interesting. Potter used to mention often that the opposition will also have their plan. I wonder whether Lampard's playing history of mostly rolling over the opposition's plan has left him slightly ill equipped to give it proper consideration. If you have always been used to imposing your will on a contest, is it easy to adapt when you are without the tools that allowed you to do it? Does years of success create a confirmation bias that promotes unrealistic overconfidence? Could this be a contributing factor as to why relatively few of the great / most decorated players end up being great managers? I'm definitely reading too much into this, but it just got me thinking down a route that I found interesting.
Good post, but a couple of points.In hindsight, its an obviously disastrous decision. A tiny bit of research would have shown that, if you try to press De Zerbi's Brighton, they will thank you for doing half of their job for them. Three against Southampton...
The psychology is, to me, really interesting. Potter used to mention often that the opposition will also have their plan. I wonder whether Lampard's playing history of mostly rolling over the opposition's plan has left him slightly ill equipped to give it proper consideration.
Re point 2: In fairness in to GP, as other posters have pointed out on NSC, we had started to score freely and from multiple positions at the end of last season and beginning of this one (Man U 4, Wolves 3, Leicester 5 etc).A few random observations from last night.
1. Everton collapsed, shipping 3 goals in 6 minutes. I'm glad I'm not an Everton fan, as that was truly dire. I'm not sure it can be easily fixed and may be a confidence issue.
2. Our goals are coming from all over the pitch. Yesterday they came from 4 different players. This is so, so much more preferable than being reliant on one talismanic striker, who may go missing, get injured etc. Suddenly, the risks are less concentrated, but the danger to the opposition is now everywhere. Gone are the days of Potter, when we lamented our inability to convert chances. Now the goals are flying in. What has changed?
3. Solly has found his shooting boots. I recall that soon after RDZ arrived, he said he wanted to see Solly score more goals. Reality is beginning to match expectations.
Serious stat? my goodness...Interesting point made by someone on TS this morning that Iwobi of Everton cost more than our entire starting 11