Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

Match Thread Everton vs West Ham United - Preview, Match Report & MotM Poll

Everton Man of the Match

  • Total voters
    667
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
TimHowardsBeardJuice said:
Again from today's Guardian:



www.theguardian.com

Premier League: 10 talking points from the weekend’s action

Jack Grealish can still be key for City, Newcastle look lost in transition and Leicester search for positives
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

I just do not see it. Did WH play "better?"

My eye test says no, although there were a few nervy moments, WH hit the post, and we visibly tired at the end, I think we played at least as well.

Let's look at some numbers. Right off the top these all need to be taken with a huge grain of salt, they are not dispositive, etc. but they are tools to supplement what we see when we watch 90 minutes. So a blanket disclaimer here.

xG had it Everton (0.43) 1-0 (1.43) West Ham, reflecting that Maupay's strike was real quality, ie a low-probablility shot that he converted; that we did not muster a whole lot otherwise; and that WH, for all of their shots and SOG superiority, didn't really do much more than that - +1 xG with a 14-7 shot advantage is not terrific.

whoscored.com had it decisively in Everton's favor. As always it's annoying that they put the blue team in red.


View attachment 184504
Look at the stats along the bottom and other than shots and corners there's some great signs for Everton in there. If you play with some of the individual stats what jumps out at you is that Myko and Gordon, who both seemed to have subpar games from the eye test, did a fantastic job shutting down their right, especially Bowen; that Iwobi, Gana, and Onana were excellent in midfield - Onana was dominant in the air, winning 6 duels when no one WH player had more than two; and the lopsided dribbles number showed an advantage in keeping the ball and getting forward without having to string together passes.

so there's support for the position that WH were "better," but I just reject out of hand the idea that we were bad.
Click to expand...

The defence especially the CBs played well, and seem to have a good relationship - big improvement on recent seasons - and were covering each other, but we worryingly reverted to our old failing of sitting back on a one goal lead, and allowing the opposition the run of midfield. A team with better forwards would have punished us.

This is what Frank needs to address.
 
Bluerover said:
The defence especially the CBs played well, and seem to have a good relationship - big improvement on recent seasons - and were covering each other, but we worryingly reverted to our old failing of sitting back on a one goal lead, and allowing the opposition the run of midfield. A team with better forwards would have punished us.

This is what Frank needs to address.
Click to expand...
I think a team with better forwards gives us more breathing room than west ham did. I think he played the game pretty well. He knows we don't have much going forward at the moment.
 
toffee-L said:
We are a completely different team to what we were 12 months ago. The amount of personnel changes is remarkable, there's only really Pickford and Gray in our team at present who were regulars in the team 12 months ago.

2 new fullbacks, 2 new centre halves, 2 new midfielders and the emergence of Gordon and Iwobi from squad players to undroppable first teamers and a new striker with our main goalscorer still to come in.

Serious credit is warranted for Lampard and Thelwell that they managed to overhaul a completely rotten team in extra quick time and without a serious budget. The quality is still not spectacular but this is a very likeable team at present and it's been a while since we could say that.
Click to expand...
Great post, spot on.
 

witchdoc187 said:
Which one you in mate? Used to live there for a few years
Click to expand...
Went to The King & Queen on Old Steine, not bad for footy in there these days since 'The Brighton Kop' left, yes there is a group of RS down here called 'The Brighton Kop' Its all very sad they take banners into the pub and there is the odd full kitter. Fortunately they have left to another pub which is a hole.
 
Well I watched the game and the highlights on the OS not MOTD because that was edited to make us look poor, I thought our football was good and we're only a few signings away from a reasonable team. We dont have much depth still having to bring Rondon on. When DCL is back I am sure it will be Gordon and Maupay fighting for the place. If DCL comes back and is somewhere near his best then the way he wins headers with Maupay running off him could make for more goals. I am certain we will have a better season than the last with a solid tenth place finish being a realistic target. 'Relegation scrapping Lampard is a point behind Eddie Howe's high flying Newcastle'
 
GraemeS1980 said:
Went to The King & Queen on Old Steine, not bad for footy in there these days since 'The Brighton Kop' left, yes there is a group of RS down here called 'The Brighton Kop' Its all very sad they take banners into the pub and there is the odd full kitter. Fortunately they have left to another pub which is a hole.
Click to expand...
Haha we used to go there after Sunday league football. I've had some mental nights in there. The old owner presuming she isn't there anymore was an arsenal fan I seem to recall. I'm talking about 15 years ago. She wouldn't have stood for the Brighton kop I'm sure. Any idea where they drink now out of interest?
 

TimHowardsBeardJuice said:
Again from today's Guardian:



www.theguardian.com

Premier League: 10 talking points from the weekend’s action

Jack Grealish can still be key for City, Newcastle look lost in transition and Leicester search for positives
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

I just do not see it. Did WH play "better?"

My eye test says no, although there were a few nervy moments, WH hit the post, and we visibly tired at the end, I think we played at least as well.

Let's look at some numbers. Right off the top these all need to be taken with a huge grain of salt, they are not dispositive, etc. but they are tools to supplement what we see when we watch 90 minutes. So a blanket disclaimer here.

xG had it Everton (0.43) 1-0 (1.43) West Ham, reflecting that Maupay's strike was real quality, ie a low-probablility shot that he converted; that we did not muster a whole lot otherwise; and that WH, for all of their shots and SOG superiority, didn't really do much more than that - +1 xG with a 14-7 shot advantage is not terrific.

whoscored.com had it decisively in Everton's favor. As always it's annoying that they put the blue team in red.


View attachment 184504
Look at the stats along the bottom and other than shots and corners there's some great signs for Everton in there. If you play with some of the individual stats what jumps out at you is that Myko and Gordon, who both seemed to have subpar games from the eye test, did a fantastic job shutting down their right, especially Bowen; that Iwobi, Gana, and Onana were excellent in midfield - Onana was dominant in the air, winning 6 duels when no one WH player had more than two; and the lopsided dribbles number showed an advantage in keeping the ball and getting forward without having to string together passes.

so there's support for the position that WH were "better," but I just reject out of hand the idea that we were bad.
Click to expand...
gordon and gray switch sides quite often so it may have been gray that was shutting down their right side

for example when gordon and patterson had the argument gordon was playing on the right wing
 
TimHowardsBeardJuice said:
Again from today's Guardian:



www.theguardian.com

Premier League: 10 talking points from the weekend’s action

Jack Grealish can still be key for City, Newcastle look lost in transition and Leicester search for positives
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

I just do not see it. Did WH play "better?"

My eye test says no, although there were a few nervy moments, WH hit the post, and we visibly tired at the end, I think we played at least as well.

Let's look at some numbers. Right off the top these all need to be taken with a huge grain of salt, they are not dispositive, etc. but they are tools to supplement what we see when we watch 90 minutes. So a blanket disclaimer here.

xG had it Everton (0.43) 1-0 (1.43) West Ham, reflecting that Maupay's strike was real quality, ie a low-probablility shot that he converted; that we did not muster a whole lot otherwise; and that WH, for all of their shots and SOG superiority, didn't really do much more than that - +1 xG with a 14-7 shot advantage is not terrific.

whoscored.com had it decisively in Everton's favor. As always it's annoying that they put the blue team in red.


View attachment 184504
Look at the stats along the bottom and other than shots and corners there's some great signs for Everton in there. If you play with some of the individual stats what jumps out at you is that Myko and Gordon, who both seemed to have subpar games from the eye test, did a fantastic job shutting down their right, especially Bowen; that Iwobi, Gana, and Onana were excellent in midfield - Onana was dominant in the air, winning 6 duels when no one WH player had more than two; and the lopsided dribbles number showed an advantage in keeping the ball and getting forward without having to string together passes.

so there's support for the position that WH were "better," but I just reject out of hand the idea that we were bad.
Click to expand...
Worth pointing out a bunch of their corners came directly from another corner, and a lot of their shots were from pretty hopeful positions as opposed to clear cut chances, so the stats get pretty skewed by that.

Also worth noting we had 3/4 crosses which our players were inches away from which likely would’ve gone in if they’d made contact with, which again doesn’t really show up in the stats
 
catcherintherye said:
They were unlucky with the woodwork, as we have been unlucky with offside calls v Leeds/Liverpool. But they were toothless up top because we nullified them. We lost to a lot of toothless teams last season, and gave them goals.

They're a decent team. Have spent 200m. The fact it's a debate shows we are making progress and will be nowhere near teh relegation zone if we keep the same performance level up.
Click to expand...
I actually think that it was a great result for us. Possibly all of the defenders made mistakes but there was cover there. We struggled after we scored and I think that Gordon had a quiet game by his standards. It's always good to win and have plenty of areas to fix. I do think that Lampard was slow with his substitutions and I am not sure why Allan was not on the bench. Not an immediate problem given the current fixture list but I do hope that we'll not flog some of our players too much.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top