Ronald Koeman

[Paddock]

 

Claiming that other managers failed in the same way is no excuse. We didn't fail to beat top teams because of the squad but because of poor strategy. Our manager expected to lose: he should expect to win!

No- we generally lose because they have much better squads because they spend more money. It has nothing to do with the manager as a whole. Yes all managers will get it wrong from time to time but are you telling me you think it's realistic for us tobeat these sides on a regular basis? Because if you are you are spectacularly wrong.

 

We beat them here and there usually because they have an off day or we play out of our skin but no manager in the world will take a sub-standard squad to the top 4 and win regularly.

[Makis]

Moyes didn't know how to beat the top clubs either. And someone should compile a table of how many of the managers in the PL outside top six have a better record than Koeman. Fact is top clubs don't lose too many games against the smaller clubs so I doubt there are many managers who have better stats.

[Cornish Steve]

No- we generally lose because they have much better squads because they spend more money. It has nothing to do with the manager as a whole. Yes all managers will get it wrong from time to time but are you telling me you think it's realistic for us tobeat these sides on a regular basis? Because if you are you are spectacularly wrong.

 

We beat them here and there usually because they have an off day or we play out of our skin but no manager in the world will take a sub-standard squad to the top 4 and win regularly.

 

(Thanks for making this a respectful discussion!)

 

Let's focus on the one point - bottling it against the top teams. We beat City, so it's quite possible. Maybe they did have an off day, but I think we had an on day on that occasion. I would restate my earlier point, though: Koeman expects to lose against the big teams, whereas I genuinely think we can beat them. Look at Palace beating Arsenal recently as an example. They believed they could win, and they did. We lost against Liverpool before the first whistle blew because Koeman set us up on the assumption we would lose. You could see it in the players' attitude and approach.

 

I wouldn't have a problem if we played to win but lost because the other team was stronger, but this isn't why we lost most of these games. Indeed, away to Liverpool was the best (worst!) example of this. They are very beatable. In this area of the game, Koeman is Moyes 2.0.

[Makis]

You have the worst kind of confirmation bias I have seen in a long time. You pick a single match and deduce that it means top teams can be won by the teams outside the top six. And you also decide to basically brush away Koeman's wins against the top six. You also completely disregard the fact Arsenal have been quite shite for some time, but yet beating them is somehow a better accomplishment than beating City.

 

Yesterday we lined up with three forwards, yet Koeman wasn't trying to win?

[Shukes]

He is talking about motivation though. There is nothing wrong with losing but giving your all.

It's when we bottle it that there is a problem....and we seem to bottle it against the big boys 90% of the time.

[Paddock]

 

(Thanks for making this a respectful discussion!)

 

Let's focus on the one point - bottling it against the top teams. We beat City, so it's quite possible. Maybe they did have an off day, but I think we had an on day on that occasion. I would restate my earlier point, though: Koeman expects to lose against the big teams, whereas I genuinely think we can beat them. Look at Palace beating Arsenal recently as an example. They believed they could win, and they did. We lost against Liverpool before the first whistle blew because Koeman set us up on the assumption we would lose. You could see it in the players' attitude and approach.

 

I wouldn't have a problem if we played to win but lost because the other team was stronger, but this isn't why we lost most of these games. Indeed, away to Liverpool was the best (worst!) example of this. They are very beatable. In this area of the game, Koeman is Moyes 2.0.

Steve, it doesn't work like that mate, I don't really need to say much more as Makis first post was absolutely bang on. Fact is the top 6 don't lose many games. Look at the league and their lost columns 32 games lost between the six of them which equates to on average 5 games a season lost. Most of those will be to each other.

 

It's nothing to do with bottling it, it does to a point have to do with tactics but the reality is they are just better than us with bigger transfer budgets, bigger wage salaries and the lure of European football. We will beat them a couple of times a season but that's realistically all we can expect to do. None of the other teams beat them regularly either.

 

In short no matter what sport you play- the best almost always win.

[Paddock]

He is talking about motivation though. There is nothing wrong with losing but giving your all.

It's when we bottle it that there is a problem....and we seem to bottle it against the big boys 90% of the time.

Shukes, motivation alone wont see you win REGULARLYagainst these sides, it will get you the odd win here and there but to compete on their level you need players of a high enough quality to do it.

[Makis]

How did this lack of motivation manifest itself yesterday?

[Paddock]

How did this lack of motivation manifest itself yesterday?

It didn't, we were beaten by the better side. We done ok for the first 60 minutes (I thought anyway) against arguable the best team in the league who knew they had to win.

[Newty82]

I think you only have to look at how Chelsea celebrated that win yesterday to see how much it meant to them.

[EFC-Paul]

There wasn't a lot in it yesterday up to their 1st goal. Fact is that they have that extra quality - extra depth. Koeman has already started the overhaul of the squad but there are still a high number of players who simply aren't good enough if we're going to break that top 6/ challenge for silverware and Champions League football.

 

We have the basis of a good squad with the core players plus highly productive youth set-up but senior options like Kone, Lennon and Mirallas to some extent aren't going to cut it when you look at the quality we're competing with - look at the options on benches yesterday for example - ManU - Mkhitarian and Mata

Chelsea - Fabregas and Willian

Arsenal - Welbeck and Walcott

Spurs - Dembele and Sissoko

ManC - Sterling, Nolito and Sane

 

All are game changing options and most would massively improve us.

 

A few too many people have unrealistic expectations of where we are/should be. I can see we've made a massive shift in the right direction this season and Koeman's delivered on what he said he was going to. The next hurdle is massive though - shift up to 10 more substandard/aging players and replace them with better quality while holding on to prized assets. I believe we've got the corrrect infrastructure to negotiate what SHOULD be an extremely busy summer.

Absolutely spot on, good post!

[Cornish Steve]

You have the worst kind of confirmation bias I have seen in a long time. You pick a single match and deduce that it means top teams can be won by the teams outside the top six. And you also decide to basically brush away Koeman's wins against the top six. You also completely disregard the fact Arsenal have been quite shite for some time, but yet beating them is somehow a better accomplishment than beating City.

 

Yesterday we lined up with three forwards, yet Koeman wasn't trying to win?

 

It's not just a single game. Yes, we beat City and yes, we should have beaten United. Chelsea at home is open to question. The other games against the top clubs, though, we went into them assuming we would lose. At least, that's how we played. We will never improve if we give teams way too much respect and assume that a 1-0 loss is damage limitation. A 1-0 loss is unacceptable if we don't believe and try like we can win!

[Cornish Steve]

Steve, it doesn't work like that mate, I don't really need to say much more as Makis first post was absolutely bang on. Fact is the top 6 don't lose many games. Look at the league and their lost columns 32 games lost between the six of them which equates to on average 5 games a season lost. Most of those will be to each other.

 

It's nothing to do with bottling it, it does to a point have to do with tactics but the reality is they are just better than us with bigger transfer budgets, bigger wage salaries and the lure of European football. We will beat them a couple of times a season but that's realistically all we can expect to do. None of the other teams beat them regularly either.

 

In short no matter what sport you play- the best almost always win.

 

Leicester?

[Paddock]

 

It's not just a single game. Yes, we beat City and yes, we should have beaten United. Chelsea at home is open to question. The other games against the top clubs, though, we went into them assuming we would lose. At least, that's how we played. We will never improve if we give teams way too much respect and assume that a 1-0 loss is damage limitation. A 1-0 loss is unacceptable if we don't believe and try like we can win!

We drew twice with United, beat and drew with city, beat Arsenal 1 to play, lost twice to Chelsea and shite and drew and lost to spurs. IF we beat Arsena we will of won 3 drew 4 and lost 5.that's not too bad in my book.

[Paddock]

 

Leicester?

Complete anomaly and will never be repeated. You can't use one single example in 50 or more years as the norm Steve.

[Cornish Steve]

The bottom line is that you make the top four only if you displace at least one of the existing top four, which means we become better than they are. Money is a part of it, yes, but strategy is more important IMO. A strong sense of belief also helps. As Henry Ford famously said, whether you believe you'll win or lose, you're right.

[Cornish Steve]

Complete anomaly and will never be repeated. You can't use one single example in 50 or more years as the norm Steve.

 

Forest? Their achievement under Brian Clough was staggering.

 

I agree they were one-offs, but they both did it. So did Blackburn. The key is how to build a lasting legacy in the top four and not be a flash in the pan.

[Newty82]

 

Leicester?

You discredit yourself by doing that.

[Newty82]

 

Forest? Their achievement under Brian Clough was staggering.

 

I agree they were one-offs, but they both did it. So did Blackburn. The key is how to build a lasting legacy in the top four and not be a flash in the pan.

And that.

 

Blackburn by the way spent a fortune to win the league.

 

Bit daft to use examples 20 years apart to try to prove a point!

 

Something abnormal will always happen in sport...the fact it is 20 or so years apart proves that it is abnormal!!!

[Paddock]

 

Forest? Their achievement under Brian Clough was staggering.

 

I agree they were one-offs, but they both did it. So did Blackburn. The key is how to build a lasting legacy in the top four and not be a flash in the pan.

Those days were different, football has moved on. Blackburn spent a shit load of money to win the league- look at them now- they're about to be relegated to league 1.

 

Regardless of anomalies the best teams always win. If we were beating them all regularly we would be winning the league most seasons as they don't even beat each other regularly.

[Paddock]

The bottom line is that you make the top four only if you displace at least one of the existing top four, which means we become better than they are. Money is a part of it, yes, but strategy is more important IMO. A strong sense of belief also helps. As Henry Ford famously said, whether you believe you'll win or lose, you're right.

You can have the best strategy and moral in the world but if the players aren't good enough it's like pissing into the wind.

[Makis]

Clough was arguable the best manager ever in the English League so if that's the yardstick I'd say Steve will be disappointed no matter who the Everton manager is.

 

Blackburn bought the title and Leicester was the perfect storm. Perfect team for the right manager at the time plus pretty much every player playing the best season of their career. Well, Kante might improve on that but I doubt others won't. And those are the three examples from the past 30 years.

Edited May 1, 2017 by Makis

[Romey 1878]

It looks like the Lukaku thread has some company .

[Cornish Steve]

It looks like the Lukaku thread has some company .

 

Just trying to get some genuine discussion on this topic. I think we're setting our targets too low (including manager expectations) but expect most to disagree. I promise I won't repeat my case 20,000,000 times.

[c1982]

 

Just trying to get some genuine discussion on this topic. I think we're setting our targets too low (including manager expectations) but expect most to disagree. I promise I won't repeat my case 20,000,000 times.

I think more aspirational targets can be set after an ambitious/positive summer recruitment drive. Get this right and we'll be well in the mix.

[Cornish Steve]

Clough was arguable the best manager ever in the English League so if that's the yardstick I'd say Steve will be disappointed no matter who the Everton manager is.

 

Blackburn bought the title and Leicester was the perfect storm. Perfect team for the right manager at the time plus pretty much every player playing the best season of their career. Well, Kante might improve on that but I doubt others won't. And those are the three examples from the past 30 years.

 

Let's test this out. Here are the top four teams since the Premier League started.

 

1992-1993: ManU, Villa, Norwich, Blackburn

1993-1994: ManU, Blackburn, Newcastle, Arse

1994-1995: Blackburn, ManU, Forest, Liverpool

1995-1996: ManU, Newcastle, Liverpool, Villa

1996-1997: ManU, Newcastle, Arse, Liverpool

1997-1998: Arse, ManU, Liverpool, Chelsea

1998-1999: ManU, Arse, Chelsea, Leeds

1999-2000: ManU, Arse, Leeds, Liverpool

2000-2001: ManU, Arse, Liverpool, Leeds

2001-2002: Arse, Liverpool, ManU, Newcastle

2002-2003: ManU, Arse, Newcastle, Chelsea

2003-2004: Arse, Chelsea, ManU, Liverpool

2004-2005: Chelsea, Arse, ManU, Everton

2005-2006: Chelsea, ManU, Liverpool, Arse

2006-2007: ManU, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arse

2007-2008: ManU, Chelsea, Arse, Liverpool

2008-2009: ManU, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arse

2009-2010: Chelsea, ManU, Arse, Spurs

2010-2011: ManU, Chelsea, ManC, Arse

2011-2012: ManC, ManU, Arse, Spurs

2012-2013: ManU, ManC, Chelsea, Arse

2013-2014: ManC, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arse

2014-2015: Chelsea, ManC, Arse, ManU

2015-2016: Leicester, Arse, Spurs, ManC

 

For sure, certain clubs have dominated: ManU, Chelsea, and Arse in particular. ManC came from nowhere because of money. Villa, Newcastle, and Leeds dropped away after quite a decent spell near the top. Blackburn and Leicester were shooting stars. Maybe the best comparison to us right now is Spurs. They hovered around the top half for many years while rarely making the top four. It looks like they will finish second this year. How come? Compared with the other teams, it's not money. I would say it's a consistent strategy and a manager who believes they can win it all. Isn't that what we need? Spurs have not been afraid of anyone this year. As far as I recall, they never played to minimize the damage but played to win.

 

Why can't we do that? How come Poch enters every game expecting to win whereas our manager does not?

[Cornish Steve]

I think more aspirational targets can be set after an ambitious/positive summer recruitment drive. Get this right and we'll be well in the mix.

 

But didn't we say that last year?

[c1982]

 

But didn't we say that last year?

Have you watched us the last 2 seasons? We've made big progress this season.

[Makis]

 

Let's test this out. Here are the top four teams since the Premier League started.

 

1992-1993: ManU, Villa, Norwich, Blackburn

1993-1994: ManU, Blackburn, Newcastle, Arse

1994-1995: Blackburn, ManU, Forest, Liverpool

1995-1996: ManU, Newcastle, Liverpool, Villa

1996-1997: ManU, Newcastle, Arse, Liverpool

1997-1998: Arse, ManU, Liverpool, Chelsea

1998-1999: ManU, Arse, Chelsea, Leeds

1999-2000: ManU, Arse, Leeds, Liverpool

2000-2001: ManU, Arse, Liverpool, Leeds

2001-2002: Arse, Liverpool, ManU, Newcastle

2002-2003: ManU, Arse, Newcastle, Chelsea

2003-2004: Arse, Chelsea, ManU, Liverpool

2004-2005: Chelsea, Arse, ManU, Everton

2005-2006: Chelsea, ManU, Liverpool, Arse

2006-2007: ManU, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arse

2007-2008: ManU, Chelsea, Arse, Liverpool

2008-2009: ManU, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arse

2009-2010: Chelsea, ManU, Arse, Spurs

2010-2011: ManU, Chelsea, ManC, Arse

2011-2012: ManC, ManU, Arse, Spurs

2012-2013: ManU, ManC, Chelsea, Arse

2013-2014: ManC, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arse

2014-2015: Chelsea, ManC, Arse, ManU

2015-2016: Leicester, Arse, Spurs, ManC

 

For sure, certain clubs have dominated: ManU, Chelsea, and Arse in particular. ManC came from nowhere because of money. Villa, Newcastle, and Leeds dropped away after quite a decent spell near the top. Blackburn and Leicester were shooting stars. Maybe the best comparison to us right now is Spurs. They hovered around the top half for many years while rarely making the top four. It looks like they will finish second this year. How come? Compared with the other teams, it's not money. I would say it's a consistent strategy and a manager who believes they can win it all. Isn't that what we need? Spurs have not been afraid of anyone this year. As far as I recall, they never played to minimize the damage but played to win.

 

Why can't we do that? How come Poch enters every game expecting to win whereas our manager does not?

Pochettino's results against Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City and Manchester United for his first season (2014-2015):

Spurs 0 - 3 Liverpool

Arsenal 1 - 1 Spurs

ManC 4 - 1 Spurs

Chelsea 3 - 0 Spurs

Spurs 0 - 0 ManU

Spurs 5 - 3 Chelsea

Spurs 2 - 1 Arsenal

Liverpool 3 - 2 Spurs

ManU 3 - 0 Spurs

Spurs 0 - 1 ManC

W: 2 D: 2 L 6

Everton results against the same teams this season:

ManC 1 - 1 Everton

Chelsea 5 - 0 Everton

Everton 1 - 1 ManU

Everton 2 - 1 Arsenal

Everton 0 - 1 Liverpool

Everton 4 - 0 ManC

Liverpool 3 - 1 Everton

ManU 1 - 1 Everton

Everton 0 - 3 Chelsea

W: 2 D: 3: L: 4

So Koeman's results are already better than Pochettino's with one game (Arsenal) in hand. You were saying?

[Makis]

Oh, and last season Koeman's results against those teams was W: 4, D: 2, L: 4. Not bad at all.

 

Soton 2 - 3 ManU

Chelsea 1 - 3 Soton

Liverpool 1 - 1 Soton

ManCity 3 - 1 Soton

Soton 4 - 0 Arsenal

ManU 0 - 1 Soton

Arsenal 0 - 0 Soton

Soton 1 - 2 Chelsea

Soton 3 - 2 Liverpool

Soton 4 - 2 ManCity