Is Sam that bad?

[Papa Shango]

Moshiri:

"Thomas, you know how you managed Dortmund in the Champions League, getting to the Quarter Final with players like Aubemeyang, Reus and Gotze and won a trophy there...Well how does managing Everton FC sound".

Tuchel:

"Errr..."

Moshiri

"Unfortunately we're not doing too well this season, we're 17th and all but out of the Europa League, having failed to beat Limassol and Atalanta but you can come and work with Cuco Martina and Ashley Williams, and I guarantee that we are ambitious and ready to challenge the top 6 in the next few years. The North West of England is like the Hollywood of Football and we want you to be part of it"

Laughable.

After the mess Koeman and Unsworth had put us in, and the spineless efforts of our first team squad, sadly Big Sam Allardyce was the best we could realistically get in the circumstances and he has done a a solid enough job.

If he can get us a top 10 finish, we may have a chance of possibly attracting a better calibre of manager in the Summer, but to think we'd have brought in some of the names suggested on here at the time is deluded given the position we were in.

I don't get this regarding Tuchel.

Yeah he had an alright season or two at Dortmund but he is young still and relatively inexperienced. More importantly he is also out of work and has been for a while.

I reckon he would come here in the summer if we gave him enough reason to. He is hardly Rinus Michels.

 

[Steve0]

Anybody still want Silva?

 

[EFC78]

Firstly, you first paragraph is an unnecessary defence of the appointment of Allardyce. None of my posts in this thread have been about whether he was a credible appointment, or even whether he's done well. I have pointed out more than once that I think he's done just fine.

There's no bias in my point at all. You gave an example of 2 games and I gave an example of 8, you can't seriously believe that expanding the amount of games we're looking at data from means that i'm being unfair?! I'm only counting domestic games because Allardyce hasn't had European games to compare with so it's not like for like. If anything that makes his domestic games easier, as he's had longer to prepare and doesn't have to worry about the likes of Baines, Jagielka, Rooney and Williams playing 3 games a week.

Saying 'we're not getting battered except...' means we're still getting battered mate, that's fairly self explanatory I think. You're basically just agreeing with the points I've made but putting across like a disagreement. I'm saying we have spent the whole season losing to good teams and winning at home to the others, you're saying we only lose to the good teams and we were doing that anyway, and we also beat the bad teams at home. Sound familiar?

We lost at home to Burnley before he took over yes - they were in outstanding form at the time and are still above us now - and we (luckily if we're honest) drew a home game with West Brom under him - they were absolutely not in outstanding form, and are adrift at the bottom of the league. Comparable performances and results in my opinion, just like the draws away at City, Brighton and Palace before he arrived are comparable with the draws away at West Brom and home to Chelsea.

We lost 4-1 to Southampton and 2-1 to Bournemouth but the only difference in the games was the amount of chances Southampton put away, we didn't defend any better. Bournemouth had 18 shots and 6 on target, Southampton had 17 and 5 on target. We were 'ripped apart' to the same extent, but got away with it, just as we did when Newcastle hit the post twice, and we cleared two off the line and headed against our own bar against Chelsea. That's just part of football, sometimes it goes for you and sometimes it doesn't.

I'm not taking issue with Allardyce here, or trying to say he's done a bad job. All i'm doing is pointing out that saying we were in real relegation trouble before he came doesn't take into account that the way we were always going to get out of relegation trouble was by beating the teams below us at home. The fact that we had won every game at home to a side below us before he took over is enough for me to believe that we would have beaten 4 out of Huddersfield, Swansea, West Brom, Leicester and Palace whoever was in permanent charge. People obviously disagree, but i'm basing this on actual facts rather than just a gut feeling that we were doomed which is all anyone seems to be able to throw my way as an argument.

Fair enough if you weren't arguing against his appointment then (that is why I had mentioned the 2 games leading up to it, as justification). But I still think your selection of 'the last 8 games' is a selective period which makes Allardyce's record worse than his overall one. Why did you select the last 8? Is it because that's when we started to concede more goals (coincidentally around the time we started playing the top 6 sides again who we got battered by earlier in the season)? The same West Brom that people are slamming Allardyce for (and are admittedly poor), also just went to Anfield and won. Not every game is won by the better side on paper. I won't defend Allardyce for the performances against West Brom/Bournemouth but to use them in isolation like some have is unfair, and numerous people have done so in this thread.

Fair point, on the 'not getting battered except' comment, I did shoot myself in the foot there admittedly lol.

Your previous post said "there hasn't been an incredible turnaround, we've just picked up points by beating the same teams we've been beating all season, it really is that simple."

That is where I don't agree which I just posted in a previous message. In a comparable number of games so we can do a like for like comparison, Allardyce has faced 8 sides below the top 6 and got us 17 points from 24 (+7GD), whereas in the same amount of games before he came in we only got 11 points (0GD).

In case you question my 8 game selection against those sides, this is covering the whole time Allardyce has been in charge, not cherry picking a favourable number like I feel you have done.

 

[JLW]

Anybody still want Silva?

Depends who our targets are, if it’s say keep fathead, Eddie Howe or Silva then yes Silva for me.
If it’s Fonseca/Tuchel then no

 

[Simon Buttle]

I don't get this regarding Tuchel.

Yeah he had an alright season or two at Dortmund but he is young still and relatively inexperienced. More importantly he is also out of work and has been for a while.

I reckon he would come here in the summer if we gave him enough reason to. He is hardly Rinus Michels.

I think it's because when Tuchel did well at Dortmund, they were an awesome team, bit like the RS now but could actually defend also. Tuchel's problem is that he apparently doesn't take to other people getting involved or making comments on his team, and he ended up clashing with someone from Dortmunds backroom (think maybe the DOF) and throwing an absolute spazout over it, resulting in him getting the boot.

 

[EFC78]

I don't get this regarding Tuchel.

Yeah he had an alright season or two at Dortmund but he is young still and relatively inexperienced. More importantly he is also out of work and has been for a while.

I reckon he would come here in the summer if we gave him enough reason to. He is hardly Rinus Michels.

I don't know a great deal about him as German football doesn't really interest me so other than the small bits of info you hear and the best players in that league I couldn't say how good he is. Was just pointing out that with us sat in 18th (when Koeman was sacked), and 17th when Moshiri decided to give Allardyce the job, I can't imagine the former Dortmund manager, who'd recently managed in the CL, would want to come in to the shambles that was Everton back in October/November.

The summer is a different proposition and we should have a far better chance of attracting a decent name.

 

[electricblue]

If he is still here at the beginning of next season the knives will be out for him quickly if we aren't getting good results and he could be gone by September. This will mean another wasted season as someone else will need time to bed in.

Best going at the end of this season if not before.

 

[davids]

I'd love to see how some of the posters who make continuous references to Allardyces physical appearence look when they are 62.

 

[gaino92]

I think it's because when Tuchel did well at Dortmund, they were an awesome team, bit like the RS now but could actually defend also. Tuchel's problem is that he apparently doesn't take to other people getting involved or making comments on his team, and he ended up clashing with someone from Dortmunds backroom (think maybe the DOF) and throwing an absolute spazout over it, resulting in him getting the boot.

Didn't that start over the team bus getting attacked? He sadi the players weren't in the frame of mind to play the game the next day and he got no backing from the Board, basically forced them to play

 

[Saint Domingo]

Firstly, you first paragraph is an unnecessary defence of the appointment of Allardyce. None of my posts in this thread have been about whether he was a credible appointment, or even whether he's done well. I have pointed out more than once that I think he's done just fine.

There's no bias in my point at all. You gave an example of 2 games and I gave an example of 8, you can't seriously believe that expanding the amount of games we're looking at data from means that i'm being unfair?! I'm only counting domestic games because Allardyce hasn't had European games to compare with so it's not like for like. If anything that makes his domestic games easier, as he's had longer to prepare and doesn't have to worry about the likes of Baines, Jagielka, Rooney and Williams playing 3 games a week.

Saying 'we're not getting battered except...' means we're still getting battered mate, that's fairly self explanatory I think. You're basically just agreeing with the points I've made but putting across like a disagreement. I'm saying we have spent the whole season losing to good teams and winning at home to the others, you're saying we only lose to the good teams and we were doing that anyway, and we also beat the bad teams at home. Sound familiar?

We lost at home to Burnley before he took over yes - they were in outstanding form at the time and are still above us now - and we (luckily if we're honest) drew a home game with West Brom under him - they were absolutely not in outstanding form, and are adrift at the bottom of the league. Comparable performances and results in my opinion, just like the draws away at City, Brighton and Palace before he arrived are comparable with the draws away at West Brom and home to Chelsea.

We lost 4-1 to Southampton and 2-1 to Bournemouth but the only difference in the games was the amount of chances Southampton put away, we didn't defend any better. Bournemouth had 18 shots and 6 on target, Southampton had 17 and 5 on target. We were 'ripped apart' to the same extent, but got away with it, just as we did when Newcastle hit the post twice, and we cleared two off the line and headed against our own bar against Chelsea. That's just part of football, sometimes it goes for you and sometimes it doesn't.

I'm not taking issue with Allardyce here, or trying to say he's done a bad job. All i'm doing is pointing out that saying we were in real relegation trouble before he came doesn't take into account that the way we were always going to get out of relegation trouble was by beating the teams below us at home. The fact that we had won every game at home to a side below us before he took over is enough for me to believe that we would have beaten 4 out of Huddersfield, Swansea, West Brom, Leicester and Palace whoever was in permanent charge. People obviously disagree, but i'm basing this on actual facts rather than just a gut feeling that we were doomed which is all anyone seems to be able to throw my way as an argument.

In fairness we were 2 down to Watford and 1 down to Bournemouth (should have been 2) before Niasse rescued us in both. We didn’t go behind in any of West Ham Huddersfield Leicester Palace with Swansea never really looking like they would hold their lead.

The performances at home are a level above the scrapping jobs we did st the beginning of the season. The problem is that that’s the limit if Allardyces ambitions and he expects universal praise just for winning against the bottom 13 at Goodison and getting massacred every other game.

 

[Lanolin]

Fair enough if you weren't arguing against his appointment then (that is why I had mentioned the 2 games leading up to it, as justification). But I still think your selection of 'the last 8 games' is a selective period which makes Allardyce's record worse than his overall one. Why did you select the last 8? Is it because that's when we started to concede more goals (coincidentally around the time we started playing the top 6 sides again who we got battered by earlier in the season)? The same West Brom that people are slamming Allardyce for (and are admittedly poor), also just went to Anfield and won. Not every game is won by the better side on paper. I won't defend Allardyce for the performances against West Brom/Bournemouth but to use them in isolation like some have is unfair, and numerous people have done so in this thread.

Fair point, on the 'not getting battered except' comment, I did shoot myself in the foot there admittedly lol.

Your previous post said "there hasn't been an incredible turnaround, we've just picked up points by beating the same teams we've been beating all season, it really is that simple."

That is where I don't agree which I just posted in a previous message. In a comparable number of games so we can do a like for like comparison, Allardyce has faced 8 sides below the top 6 and got us 17 points from 24 (+7GD), whereas in the same amount of games before he came in we only got 11 points (0GD).

In case you question my 8 game selection against those sides, this is covering the whole time Allardyce has been in charge, not cherry picking a favourable number like I feel you have done.

Yes the eight games was selective obviously, I thought was that clear without needing explanation. I was replying to a post using selective games by using my own selective games. The Southampton and Atalanta games keep getting used to show how bad we were, so I was just trying to highlight that using that example ad infinitum gives a slightly false impression of where we were at. It's why people keep saying they 'couldn't see where the next win was coming from' before Allardyce came, despite us having won 2 and drawn 1 of the last 4 league games before he took charge.

I feel like you're not quite understanding the point i'm making. I know we've got more points under Allardyce than under the others, you don't need to give me stats to show that and I've never suggested it wasn't the case. All i'm saying is that in my opinion - an opinion backed up by the results we achieved in the home games prior to Sam Allardyce signing his contract as Everton manager - we would very quickly have beaten enough teams at home to not be considered as relegation candidates. That's it. Not saying Koeman, or Unsworth, or Silva, or Guardiola would have picked up more points than Allardyce, simply that I think any of those named could have beaten Huddersfield and Swansea at home if they'd been in charge, and had they done so, nobody would have thought we were in a relegation scrap. That in turn means that I can't get on board with the 'Allardyce saved us' shouts, because I do not believe we needed saving.

 

[Lanolin]

In fairness we were 2 down to Watford and 1 down to Bournemouth (should have been 2) before Niasse rescued us in both. We didn’t go behind in any of West Ham Huddersfield Leicester Palace with Swansea never really looking like they would hold their lead.

The performances at home are a level above the scrapping jobs we did st the beginning of the season. The problem is that that’s the limit if Allardyces ambitions and he expects universal praise just for winning against the bottom 13 at Goodison and getting massacred every other game.

It's a fair point, but does it really make any difference? 3 points is 3 points surely, regardless of whether you had to come from behind?

I made the point in the same post that sometimes you get a bit of luck and sometimes you don't. We didn't go behind against Leicester but they hit the bar at 0-0 and laid siege to our goal at 2-1, Palace had countless headed chances and a goal disallowed, West Ham missed a pen and hit the bar. Against Burnley we could (should) have taken the lead, having had a shot cleared off the line and Sigurdsson missing a sitter. Burnley had just 2 shots on target in that game, less than all the teams you've mentioned there, and West Brom managed.

I don't see much difference to be honest.

 

[Simon Buttle]

Didn't that start over the team bus getting attacked? He sadi the players weren't in the frame of mind to play the game the next day and he got no backing from the Board, basically forced them to play

It might have done, i just remember reading somewhere about him having a massive falling out with the people upstairs at Dortmund and how he likes to be the one in control of everything.

 

[Saint Domingo]

It's a fair point, but does it really make any difference? 3 points is 3 points surely, regardless of whether you had to come from behind?

I made the point in the same post that sometimes you get a bit of luck and sometimes you don't. We didn't go behind against Leicester but they hit the bar at 0-0 and laid siege to our goal at 2-1, Palace had countless headed chances and a goal disallowed, West Ham missed a pen and hit the bar. Against Burnley we could (should) have taken the lead, having had a shot cleared off the line and Sigurdsson missing a sitter. Burnley had just 2 shots on target in that game, less than all the teams you've mentioned there, and West Brom managed.

I don't see much difference to be honest.

Through no fault of his own the players would not play for Unsworth. We wouldn’t have the point at Anfield, the three at Newcastle or the one v Chelsea at home. We were absolutely horrific away from home under him and defensively wide open. I wouldn’t want to be sat here 5 points less in all likelihood. Also Palace and Leicester are decent away teams so beating them comfortably shouldn’t be derided.

 

[Lanolin]

Through no fault of his own the players would not play for Unsworth. We wouldn’t have the point at Anfield, the three at Newcastle or the one v Chelsea at home. We were absolutely horrific away from home under him and defensively wide open. I wouldn’t want to be sat here 5 points less in all likelihood. Also Palace and Leicester are decent away teams so beating them comfortably shouldn’t be derided.

Again, i'm not here to say we should have kept Unsworth or that Allardyce is useless. All i'm saying is that I would be asking very, very serious questions of any manager who had this squad in real trouble at this stage of the season. My belief was always that we would get out of it with the relatively easy run we had coming up, and that's what we did. Some people think that only happened because of Allardyce, I don't.