Eddie Howe

Do you think Eddie should go

  • Total voters
    176
Neil Dawson said:
I think you are right. It’s why I’ve always wanted Eddie to do change his back team around inputting constant new ideas like Fergie did. There was a reason he had success at one club over a longer period than most and it wasn’t because he could strip wallpaper with his voice or that he was a tactical genius.
Click to expand...

Longevity amongst managers at the same club is hard. Fergie is the only example but if that was a template that could be copied then it would have been done and you could then list lots of other examples.

Ferguson is certainly not the only manager to regularly change his back room staff.

I think it’s down to how hard it is to actually build a side and then dismantle it to build another one.

I’ve been saying for a couple of years this is a squad in transition. These things take time, we’ve lowered the average age of the squad quite dramatically and these players need to find their professional pride and place in the game. They don’t have the character because they haven’t had the experiences the “old guard” had.

The rest has been the perfect storm that others have quoted.

The balance of the side would have been better if the likes of Charlie Daniels had stayed fit and Steve Cook, Joshua King and even Nathan Ake weren’t quite so in and out of the side.

If there was a mainstay alongside Lerma in central midfield the spine of the squad and communication would have been ok. Perhaps maybe we wouldn’t fold quite so easily.

But a large part of the problem is still a lack of options and pace in the wide areas which make us predictable in attack and means we create little.

If Ryan Fraser could just be half the player he was last season, if Danjuma, Brooks, Stanislas had been available...if Adam Smith had been fit, all these things mean our wingers have been ineffective and our full backs have been non existent.

Howe could bring in all the outside coaches with new magic ideas to keep him fresh, but he’d still have the same knackered players to work with and zero options due to the number of injured players
 
DJ said:
Longevity amongst managers at the same club is hard. Fergie is the only example but if that was a template that could be copied then it would have been done.

I think it’s down to how hard it is to actually build a side and then dismantle it to build another one.

I’ve been saying for a couple of years this is a squad in transition. These things take time, we’ve lowered the average age of the squad quite dramatically and these players need to find their professional pride and place in the game. They don’t have the character because they haven’t had the experiences the “old guard” had.

The rest has been the perfect storm that others have quoted.

The balance of the side would have been better if the likes of Charlie Daniels had stayed fit and Steve Cook, Joshua King and even Nathan Ake weren’t quite so in and out of the side.

If there was a mainstay alongside Lerma in central midfield the spine of the squad and communication would have been ok. Perhaps maybe we wouldn’t fold quite so easily.

But a large part of the problem is still a lack of options and pace in the wide areas which make us predictable in attack and means we create little.

If Ryan Fraser could just be half the player he was last season, if Danjuma, Brooks, Stanislas had been available...if Adam Smith had been fit, all these things mean our wingers have been ineffective and our full backs have been non existent.

Howe could bring in all the outside coaches with new magic ideas to keep him fresh, but he’d still have the same knackered players to work with and zero options due to the number of injured players
Click to expand...

True. But potentially having outside influences would have used the money he has spent more wisely or had better frames of references and contacts. They might also have worked better with some of the many players that haven’t flourished in the last few years while fit. How is Billing a worse player than when he arrived? Could Fraser and Wilson have benefitted from a new attacking coach as they are now sussed our. Could a defensive coach have tackled our annual goal glut against? Could a different coach have cracked a formula other than 4-4-2. Would a different medical team have kept more players fit?

We will never know of course. It’s the not trying much different I find frustrating.

We were always going to struggle on the transition you are correct so the answer was to look for strength and new tactics not just see the answer as getting the cheque book out for what were in too many cases average players.
 
One question I can get out of my mind is, how can Liverpool, Man City, Wolves etc play twice a week, against top international teams and keep their players fresh and fit ??
We play a game a week and are knackered, and I hestate to say that those teams play a more fast and pressing game than we do.
 
Neil Dawson said:
I think you are right. It’s why I’ve always wanted Eddie to do change his back team around inputting constant new ideas like Fergie did. There was a reason he had success at one club over a longer period than most and it wasn’t because he could strip wallpaper with his voice or that he was a tactical genius.
Click to expand...

Did he change his staff or was he forced to when his assistant managers went on to become managers elsewhere - honest question.

As DJ says Fergie is one example which bucks the trend - all of the best managers of the current era have had periods of failure and have had to move on. Fergie had the benefit of being at the very top of the game with a record of winning trophies. This surely brings a certain level of authority and trust that ensures players will have faith long term in the manager. I'm not sure Howe or anyone else outside the top six has that luxury.

If the players have lost faith in him I wonder if a new coach will make any difference.
 
The injuries dont explain the poor performances from the end of last season through to now.
Why are the players knackered ?
Why keep chopping and changing unfit players when still losing and failing to score, better to play development players and save the first picks for the winnable matches.
Who is coaching the players to look to play backwards or sideways from every free kick?
 
corfe_red said:
One question I can get out of my mind is, how can Liverpool, Man City, Wolves etc play twice a week, against top international teams and keep their players fresh and fit ??
We play a game a week and are knackered, and I hestate to say that those teams play a more fast and pressing game than we do.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the reason we moved to a more counterattacking approach is because the previous reviews into our injuries suggested that training and matches were too intense. We may be seeing the fruits of their efforts to curb the injury problems. Clearly they haven't worked and we've thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
 
JIMNNINA said:
The injuries dont explain the poor performances from the end of last season through to now.
Why are the players knackered ?
Why keep chopping and changing unfit players when still losing and failing to score, better to play development players and save the first picks for the winnable matches.
Who is coaching the players to look to play backwards or sideways from every free kick?
Click to expand...

Development players in a must win? He played a young keeper, how did that go?
 
SlowDownDerek said:
Did he change his staff or was he forced to when his assistant managers went on to become managers elsewhere - honest question.

As DJ says Fergie is one example which bucks the trend - all of the best managers of the current era have had periods of failure and have had to move on. Fergie had the benefit of being at the very top of the game with a record of winning trophies. This surely brings a certain level of authority and trust that ensures players will have faith long term in the manager. I'm not sure Howe or anyone else outside the top six has that luxury.

If the players have lost faith in him I wonder if a new coach will make any difference.
Click to expand...

The answer to your Fergie question depends whether you believe me or Top Farrier. In his book he spoke about moving coaches in and out for mutual benefit. Top Farrier thinks they just got jobs and he had to replace them.

One thing that is well documented is his recruitment of Carlos Quieros when he wanted to move to a five man midfield in Europe as he openly admitted he needed help on how it would attack.

Look, Fergie also had huge financial backing and stature of trophy winning it wasn’t all the moving around of coaches.

It’s not a blueprint for success. To me though you could see we were struggling for an identity from Feb onwards with some really drab performances that have been exacerbated as each injury kicks in. It needed a new impetus and this was an obvious route to get it without changing the manager.
 
Neil Dawson said:
The answer to your Fergie question depends whether you believe me or Top Farrier. In his book he spoke about moving coaches in and out for mutual benefit. Top Farrier thinks they just got jobs and he had to replace them.

One thing that is well documented is his recruitment of Carlos Quieros when he wanted to move to a five man midfield in Europe as he openly admitted he needed help on how it would attack.

Look, Fergie also had huge financial backing and stature of trophy winning it wasn’t all the moving around of coaches.

It’s not a blueprint for success. To me though you could see we were struggling for an identity from Feb onwards with some really drab performances that have been exacerbated as each injury kicks in. It needed a new impetus and this was an obvious route to get it without changing the manager.
Click to expand...

But hypothetically speaking, who could we attract for this role?

Manchester United were the biggest club in the world with a successful manager and aura about him. He could get virtually anyone he wanted playing wise or coaching wise.

We’re a small club punching above our weight built on the success of someone who to most seasoned coaches still looks 20.

We have our limitations on the players we can attract and that is the same for back room staff.

Anyone with the tactical nous that you are wanting would be making their own way in the game. They wouldn’t see being the outsider in Howe’s back room team as the stepping stone they desire.
 
Neil Dawson said:
The answer to your Fergie question depends whether you believe me or Top Farrier. In his book he spoke about moving coaches in and out for mutual benefit. Top Farrier thinks they just got jobs and he had to replace them.

One thing that is well documented is his recruitment of Carlos Quieros when he wanted to move to a five man midfield in Europe as he openly admitted he needed help on how it would attack.

Look, Fergie also had huge financial backing and stature of trophy winning it wasn’t all the moving around of coaches.

It’s not a blueprint for success. To me though you could see we were struggling for an identity from Feb onwards with some really drab performances that have been exacerbated as each injury kicks in. It needed a new impetus and this was an obvious route to get it without changing the manager.
Click to expand...

I think this is easy to suggest but not so easy in practice. Has this happened anywhere other than at Man Utd when they are the best side in the country by a distance?

There are no examples of mid table clubs with long term managers in recent years other than Burnley and their solution is to play turgid attritional football to survive, even then they may get relegated too.

When things go south there is a tendency to blame every single aspect of a manager's setup irrespective of the success they have previously enjoyed.

Personally I suspect that things have finally gone stale, as was inevitable at some point, the solution is managerial change not tinkering around the edges. Personally I wouldn't sack the guy until Christmas if he's still failing because I think he deserves the loyalty he's shown us... then again, I'm an evangelist so I don't expect this is a common opinion.
 
Neil Dawson said:
The answer to your Fergie question depends whether you believe me or Top Farrier. In his book he spoke about moving coaches in and out for mutual benefit. Top Farrier thinks they just got jobs and he had to replace them.

One thing that is well documented is his recruitment of Carlos Quieros when he wanted to move to a five man midfield in Europe as he openly admitted he needed help on how it would attack.

Look, Fergie also had huge financial backing and stature of trophy winning it wasn’t all the moving around of coaches.

It’s not a blueprint for success. To me though you could see we were struggling for an identity from Feb onwards with some really drab performances that have been exacerbated as each injury kicks in. It needed a new impetus and this was an obvious route to get it without changing the manager.
Click to expand...

Neil one of the things you've raised repeatedly is the recruitment, which I find incredible that anyone argues with. I mean, how the f#ck do you end up with 5 midfielders and the only one who's vaguely creative is Surman? Why did we buy Billing rather than Mooy who was the only player who stood out in the Huddersfield team or at least someone like him? Just how many ball winning midfielders does one team need? Why buy Kelly if you've also bought Mepham and already got Rico, Mings, Simpson and Ake? I'm sure some smartarse will be along to tell me we didn't have Mings or Mepham when we bought Kelly but my point is why do we keep buying players in the same position and then not giving half of them a chance?

Some of the recruitment in the last 5 years has been brilliant but if you've got Lerma and Cook you don't need Billing etc. It's all very well building for the future but apart from anything else this shows bad faith in the players you already have who must find it very dispiriting. Simpson must know he's never going to be given a real chance and is only kept in the squad "just in case", what sort of development is that for a young player?
 
So we have more than 90% that want Eddie to stay, while more than 75% (on the other poll) expect we will go down. Not sure what the psychoanalysts would suggest that says about us as a group .... probably somewhere between loyal and masochistic.

I will say that loyalty in sport is a rare thing ... usually more about "what have you done for me lately".
 
I think the key mistake Eddie has made was failing to recognise what precisely made his system so effective. For me it was down to the group of players we had at the time and the understanding they had on the pitch rather than being part of some dynamic tactical revolution.

As others have said, we are a team in transition. Some of the old guard has moved on and superior talent has been added. On the whole, the recruitment has been good, but it should have been more apparent that these players weren’t going to fit into a system that essentially was developed in L1.

Now you could argue we should have recruited players specifically to fit Eddie’s system. That’s nonsense because such players simply don’t exist. Very few players with the ability to play in the PL would have much experience playing in a 4-4-2 and that includes players signed from Championship clubs too.

Instead of pigeon holing new recruits into a system which was no longer effective, it would have been better to have evolved the system to reflect the different talent sets of these recruits.
 
Plan B needed from Eddie.
Try something new. the present Eddie game isn't working and he must be blind not to see it.
I would bring Fraser into the middle up front together with Callum.
We need Surman back too, to steady our defensive midfield.
Forget overlapping wing backs as other teams know how to play that system, we need to play through the middle.
New system 3,2,3,2
Fraser Wilson
Wilson Solanke Cook
Lerma Surman
Ake Cook Smith
Ramsdale
Subs, Boruc, Sturridge, Gosling, Billing, Simpson, Francis, Kilkenny, Dobre.
 
JIMNNINA said:
The injuries dont explain the poor performances from the end of last season through to now.
Why are the players knackered ?
Why keep chopping and changing unfit players when still losing and failing to score, better to play development players and save the first picks for the winnable matches.
Who is coaching the players to look to play backwards or sideways from every free kick?
Click to expand...

Injuries have meant we've had a very changing side though... `I honestly can't recall the last time we played 2 matches with the same personnel. Yes you could argue it's a squad game these days, but we were built on partnerships and we have none currently. The back 4 is always changing, as is the midfield. The only two that seem to be constant are Solanke and C.Wilson and they are seeing the consequences of having such disconnect behind them.

We're also knackered as Eddie has stuck with this style of play which means we spend considerable time chasing the game = knackered... Keeping the ball will do wonders for our stamina. I'm surprised Eddie hasn't realised this.

I think the vast majority of folks, when asked to think sensibly, and not immediately after a game when knee-jerk rants are in fashion, would say they want Eddie to stay, but they're just frustrated to sh*t about how things are currently and simply 'don't understand'...

The players are decent... we know that
Eddie is a decent manager... we know that
We were doing 'ok' at one point... we know that
Football, when stripped back to basics, is a simply game... we know that

So why the f*ck are we continuing to look like we don't give a sh*t when we're out there...

I hope Ramsdale went in at H/T and F/T and gave the lads a fans' perspective of what we see week in week out and how static, slow, pedestrian, sloppy it really is...
 
SlowDownDerek said:
Personally I wouldn't sack the guy until Christmas if he's still failing because I think he deserves the loyalty he's shown us... then again, I'm an evangelist so I don't expect this is a common opinion.
Click to expand...

Well I’m not an evangelist and I’ve also said I wouldn’t sack him until exactly the same point so it’s a fairly common opinion I guess!
 
Tinpot Club said:
I think the key mistake Eddie has made was failing to recognise what precisely made his system so effective. For me it was down to the group of players we had at the time and the understanding they had on the pitch rather than being part of some dynamic tactical revolution.

As others have said, we are a team in transition. Some of the old guard has moved on and superior talent has been added. On the whole, the recruitment has been good, but it should have been more apparent that these players weren’t going to fit into a system that essentially was developed in L1.

Now you could argue we should have recruited players specifically to fit Eddie’s system. That’s nonsense because such players simply don’t exist. Very few players with the ability to play in the PL would have much experience playing in a 4-4-2 and that includes players signed from Championship clubs too.

Instead of pigeon holing new recruits into a system which was no longer effective, it would have been better to have evolved the system to reflect the different talent sets of these recruits.
Click to expand...

Re the first part, Eddie knew this so wanted new signings to learn the Bournemouth way. His new signings were also meant to fit in with a new playing style of more counter attacking players (eg brooks) with stronger defence (billing and lerma in midfield and a new back four of Stacey, Mepham, Kelley Rico).

sadly the transition hasn’t gone to plan combined with other factors so we need a new approach
 
Toronto John said:
I will say that loyalty in sport is a rare thing ... usually more about "what have you done for me lately".
Click to expand...

it is a rare thing but taking a football club up three divisions and keeping them there is a rarer thing hence the answer to why we look so masochistic. It’s the bit a lot of phone in shows forget when discussing us
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;