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.

 

Moyes Potential Replacement

Who do you want? - being realistic

  • Roberto Martinez

    Votes: 221 13.8%

  • Vitor Pereira

    Votes: 594 37.2%

  • Neil Lennon

    Votes: 40 2.5%

  • Di Matteo

    Votes: 58 3.6%

  • Slaven Bilic

    Votes: 73 4.6%

  • Michael Laudrup

    Votes: 410 25.7%

  • Malky Mackay

    Votes: 33 2.1%

  • From within the club

    Votes: 60 3.8%

  • Other

    Votes: 108 6.8%
  • Total voters
    1,597
Status
Not open for further replies.
nigelcoyb said:
Moyes has had approx 100 players through the Goodison doors in his decade, running at a rate of 10 per season we don't see many come through and at risk of going over old ground we don't get Michu, Moses, Valencia types do we?

I've said this before he gets in about what you'd expect of any manager giving his time here steady "do a job" types not quite up to the next level - I really think it's overstated his transfer success.
Click to expand...

58 players
http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transfers/everton-transfers.html

58 players
Only 37 cost a fee and of them only 27 of them cost more than a million.

So in fact nowhere near 100 players.
 

blueblue said:
Yes,we did finish in the top four once...we have subsequently won more points in a season and failed to get top four,how many times has a club with 61 points been in the top four at the end of the season ?
Click to expand...
I've heard this before and don't understand the logic. 61 may have been one of the lowest totals but every other club below us had the same chance to get to a higher total and failed. So it's all relative.

No matter if it's 80 points or 60 points for fourth everyone is on the same scale. So if you do better than 16 other clubs that year it's the same thing regardless of your total points. "Oh yeah he got fourth but that year fourth was only 61 points" implies that it was easier that year than normal ... you could argue a compressed point total signals a MORE competitive league (because the top teams aren't steam-rolling everyone) ... not less.

I'm not sure how the middle and lower table sides winning against the top sides more often makes a league easier to win or finish fourth in. We had to play those sides all the other teams were dropping points to as well ... and we did better than they did.

nigelcoyb said:
Moyes has had approx 100 players through the Goodison doors in his decade, running at a rate of 10 per season we don't see many come through and at risk of going over old ground we don't get Michu, Moses, Valencia types do we?
Click to expand...
Huh? If by those "types" you mean essentially CL quality players I'd say Fellaini, Baines and Lescott are "those types" of players. How many do you expect him to have found?

nigelcoyb said:
I've said this before he gets in about what you'd expect of any manager giving his time here
Click to expand...
There are a crap load of teams who would be VERY happy with regular top seven finishes, a handful of Europa runs and an outside shot at the CL. If it's as easy as "let the same average 'do a job' manager stay for eleven years" then they are acting very irrationally by not just doing that and booking the extra revenue.
 
njligernj said:
I've heard this before and don't understand the logic. 61 may have been one of the lowest totals but every other club below us had the same chance to get to a higher total and failed. So it's all relative.

No matter if it's 80 points or 60 points for fourth everyone is on the same scale. So if you do better than 16 other clubs that year it's the same thing regardless of your total points. "Oh yeah he got fourth but that year fourth was only 61 points" implies that it was easier that year than normal ... you could argue a compressed point total signals a MORE competitive league (because the top teams aren't steam-rolling everyone) ... not less.

I'm not sure how the middle and lower table sides winning against the top sides more often makes a league easier to win or finish fourth in. We had to play those sides all the other teams were dropping points to as well ... and we did better than they did.

Huh? If by those "types" you mean essentially CL quality players I'd say Fellaini, Baines and Lescott are "those types" of players. How many do you expect him to have found?

There are a crap load of teams who would be VERY happy with regular top seven finishes, a handful of Europa runs and an outside shot at the CL. If it's as easy as "let the same average 'do a job' manager stay for eleven years" then they are acting very irrationally by not just doing that and booking the extra revenue.
Click to expand...
good read mate, i agree
 

deathbyropeandglass said:
Hang on, how do can we compete with Chelsea, Liverpool, spurs and arsenal cause we have a top manager when they spend loads more money than us? I didn't think it was possible.

Money is the only defining factor between where clubs finish apparently. We can compete with these teams but its unreasonable for any of us to expect to finish above them, despite the fact we have done, but when we don't money is all to blame.
Click to expand...

Timak said:
It is that simple though.

Moyes manages to get Everton to the same level as clubs that spend a lot more on players through being an excellent manager.

Now you think that because he has managed to achieve this then it means money isn't a factor.

Surely if that were the case there would be other similar managers getting their clubs to compete? Except there aren't any. Only Moyes has a club on such a small budget (smaller than Stoke and Sunderland) competing at the top. It is a rare skill.
Click to expand...

I assumed that it was kinda obvious i was picking you up on your constant references to teams with bigger spends than us as if its the only reason we would finish below them, as if its that simple : spend more money than a team, finish above that team. Moyes has proven that to be bollocks time and time again.
Money is just one of many reasons that might help a team finish above us, not the only one and i quite clearly never said anything different, especially i never said that money isn't a factor and i'm pretty sure you wouldn't even be so stupid as to suggest i was.

njligernj said:
We can finish above teams who spend a little to a lot more than us but can't finish above teams who spend a huge amount more than us. I'm not sure what is so difficult to grasp there. Just because we finish above a RS team who flushes 100m down the toilet on horrible players doesn't mean we can finish above a team which spends 250m-1b quite well. There's "more" and then there's "more" ... not all "mores" are created equal. Right ... that should clear that up then.

Once heard a chess player (one who competes in tournaments) talking about how he considered himself good at chess and if he was having a good day he could beat people who were really great at chess. However one day he played a grand master savant type and he was like a baby fighting Anderson Silva. He got utterly destroyed in a way he didn't even understand ... and this was a guy who spent hours every day for decades studying chess. He could beat the 9/10 guys every now and again but the 10/10 were so far ahead of him that he believed if he played them 1000 times he would not win a single time.

If you're smart you can get a poor team to be good. The steps from good to great to world class are the biggest steps on the ladder. Most people seem to think if you're one rung down from the top you're close. You're not close. Not by a longshot. That step is ridiculously big.
Click to expand...

Well chess is a skill game so its the abilitry of the player that counts not how much his pawns cost. Sound familar? Its the same point i've been trying to explain to people who think price tags win football matches not ability.

Now of course the more money than us a team spends the easier it should be for them to finish above us, more money means its easier to buy better players and more of them. But as Liverpool and plenty of other teams have shown, no matter how much money you spend it matters not if they spend it on crap and we spend our meagre in comparison finances on quality.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying we should easily be competing with every team regardless of how big the gap in spends is, just that its ridiculous when people try and claim we can't compete with teams who have spent more money than us when despite that were still better than them.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top