[Football] Will Eddie be sacked...??

[Stat Brother]

A hell of a long while in fact.

insightful.

 

[schmunk]

That being said, the goals they conceded to Watford were awful. Watford were camped just outside their penalty area for a goalkick, but they still played it short. Inevitably ending with conceding the crucial opening goal.

They were playing their 20-year-old 3rd choice keeper (with 39-year-old 4th choice Artur Boruc on the bench), so daft mistakes were perhaps inevitable.

 

[theboybilly]

They were playing their 20-year-old 3rd choice keeper (with 39-year-old 4th choice Artur Boruc on the bench), so daft mistakes were perhaps inevitable.

That goalie was sold down the river by much more experienced colleagues for the first goal. With hindsight he should have been ordered to kick it into touch as there was nobody moving to receive the ball. Ake was in the worst of all situations to take a pass

 

[schmunk]

This made me laugh: https://www.football365.com/news/bournemouth-need-saving-from-their-liverpool-addiction - "Bournemouth need saving from their Liverpool addiction…"

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

I think they'll stick with him given the current circumstances and he'll keep them up for this season, not that comfortably though. They will struggle big time next season though without investment on the right players.

I think you could have written this exact post at this time last year, and you would have been spot on.

 

[Cowfold Seagull]

It doesn’t work like that.
Every manager has a shelf life, whatever their past achievements.
Only a new manager bounce will save bournemouth now.
That said they are are welcome to keep hold of Ed, I’m confident he will take them down....and potentially keep us up.

You have far more faith than me my Henfield friend.

What l do think though, is that we stop taking the p out of Mr. Smug Perfect quite so much, and concentrate more on our own shortcomings, we are only a few points better off, and should we suffer our almost customary defeat there shortly, will be in the mire with them.

There but for the Grace of God etc. etc . . .

 

[Cowfold Seagull]

insightful.

Most kind.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

What are their options? Bring in Sparky or Big Sam and knock it long to the big man? There isn't a big man, and they're already knocking it long to nobody in particular.

They need to keep Howe and see what happens in summer. If they stay up, have a clear-out, and if they go down, also have a clear-out. The trouble is that they won't get much return on Solanke, Ibe, Lerma etc. Brooks returning from injury will be a help if they stay up but is one of the few players who will be worth something if they go down once he proves his fitness again.

 

[BLOCK F]

Norwich, Bournemouth, Watford, Burnley, Newcastle, Palace and Sheffield Utd have scored less than us and have bigger 'problems putting the ball in the onion bag'.

So?
Does that mean we don't have a problem?
The way we play, we should have put more chances away, surely?

 

[BLOCK F]

You have far more faith than me my Henfield friend.

What l do think though, is that we stop taking the p out of Mr. Smug Perfect quite so much, and concentrate more on our own shortcomings, we are only a few points better off, and should we suffer our almost customary defeat there shortly, will be in the mire with them.

There but for the Grace of God etc. etc . . .

Just what I said in my Schadenfreude post!

 

[DJ NOBO]

You have far more faith than me my Henfield friend.

What l do think though, is that we stop taking the p out of Mr. Smug Perfect quite so much, and concentrate more on our own shortcomings, we are only a few points better off, and should we suffer our almost customary defeat there shortly, will be in the mire with them.

There but for the Grace of God etc. etc . . .

Oh, don’t get me wrong, I know We are in the mire.

I just like Eddie in charge. They tend to lose games these days, with him at the helm.

As for not deriding Eddie - come on, he deserves it.

 

[LlcoolJ]

This made me laugh: https://www.football365.com/news/bournemouth-need-saving-from-their-liverpool-addiction - "Bournemouth need saving from their Liverpool addiction…"

Bang on that. And funny.

 

[blue-shifted]

I think they'll keep him because of his history with them - he deserves a bit of leniency, mainly because of the past but also because they've got a whole team out injured at the moment. I do think he's been wasteful with the funds he has had available, and seems to fall out with players who then don't have a chance of getting back in. But even considering that, their injury list is a nightmare and a real mitigating factor for their slump down the table.

That being said, the goals they conceded to Watford were awful. Watford were camped just outside their penalty area for a goalkick, but they still played it short. Inevitably ending with conceding the crucial opening goal.

He has given faith before after previous bad runs and has paid it back by going on spectacular winning streaks. However what happened in the past isn't necessarily what is going to happen again. They need more from Callum Wilson and Ryan Fraser

 

[KemyAgustien'sGoalThreat]

To me, it looks like he's halfway to walking himself out of the door; guy looks absolutely run ragged by this season so far!

 

[Ninja Elephant]

They were playing their 20-year-old 3rd choice keeper (with 39-year-old 4th choice Artur Boruc on the bench), so daft mistakes were perhaps inevitable.

Have you seen the goal? I know they had a manchild in goal, but when your opposition are camped out on the edge of your area, you give the ball a shoeing and hit Callum Wilson. That's just simple stuff, it's stupid to play it short in that circumstance and there is no chance at all that Smug Eddie would have wanted them to take such a stupid and unnecessary risk.

That goalie was sold down the river by much more experienced colleagues for the first goal. With hindsight he should have been ordered to kick it into touch as there was nobody moving to receive the ball. Ake was in the worst of all situations to take a pass

No, he took the goalkick. He should have played it long and been safe, especially at 0-0 in a crucial home game against a team in the bottom 3 looking to change places with them.

 

[blue-shifted]

Have you seen the goal? I know they had a manchild in goal, but when your opposition are camped out on the edge of your area, you give the ball a shoeing and hit Callum Wilson. That's just simple stuff, it's stupid to play it short in that circumstance and there is no chance at all that Smug Eddie would have wanted them to take such a stupid and unnecessary risk.



No, he took the goalkick. He should have played it long and been safe, especially at 0-0 in a crucial home game against a team in the bottom 3 looking to change places with them.

You can well imagine the lad having been bought up on a schooling of play from the back football and wanting to show the crowd and manager that he has ability with the ball at his feet bit off a bit more than he could chew.

In any case, this is a clear hazard of the style of play. It could just have easily happened with Ramsdale in goal. We’ve been caught this season playing out and I’m sure will get caught again. On the other hand we’ll get goals because the times it works our midfielders will get acres of space to exploit. I don’t think it’s the keepers fault to be honest. If you’re the manager and you’re asking your keeper to find a pass into midfield, not to hoof it you have to accept there’s an inherent risk.

 

[Albumen]

My old chap is been beaten less times than Eddie this season. I can't believe he's still in a job.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

You can well imagine the lad having been bought up on a schooling of play from the back football and wanting to show the crowd and manager that he has ability with the ball at his feet bit off a bit more than he could chew.

In any case, this is a clear hazard of the style of play. It could just have easily happened with Ramsdale in goal. We’ve been caught this season playing out and I’m sure will get caught again. On the other hand we’ll get goals because the times it works our midfielders will get acres of space to exploit. I don’t think it’s the keepers fault to be honest. If you’re the manager and you’re asking your keeper to find a pass into midfield, not to hoof it you have to accept there’s an inherent risk.

Sure, but if you pass the ball directly to the opposition on the edge of your penalty area then you're being stupid and deserve the criticism. Even Man City will play long if they're pressed in at the back, and that's with their strongest players available. If you've got a patched up team, why take the unnecessary risk? I can't believe Smug Eddie told them to play short whatever the circumstance, it was just a bad decision from a young goalkeeper who should have had the understanding of the game to play long. Ultimately, that goal cost them the game because it meant they were chasing it from then onwards and it's a shame because he actually looks a pretty competent goalkeeper.

 

[blue-shifted]

Sure, but if you pass the ball directly to the opposition on the edge of your penalty area then you're being stupid and deserve the criticism. Even Man City will play long if they're pressed in at the back, and that's with their strongest players available. If you've got a patched up team, why take the unnecessary risk? I can't believe Smug Eddie told them to play short whatever the circumstance, it was just a bad decision from a young goalkeeper who should have had the understanding of the game to play long. Ultimately, that goal cost them the game because it meant they were chasing it from then onwards and it's a shame because he actually looks a pretty competent goalkeeper.

I suppose that there is a pretty fine line between brave passing football and unnecessary risk which is quite easy to determine after you’ve played the pass and not so easy to determine before you play it

 

[7oaksgull]

There’s a few extra tickets gone on sale today for this game...